Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Pelosi: I guess the 100 hours are up!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like

    Pelosi: I guess the 100 hours are up!

    [b]GOP hits Pelosi's 'hypocrisy' on wage bill[/b]

    By Charles Hurt
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    January 12, 2007




    House Republicans yesterday declared [b]"something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.
    [/b] "I am shocked," said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party's chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. "Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats."
    On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
    The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. [b][size=3][color=red]However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.
    [/color][/size][/b] [size=3][color=red][b]One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, [u]Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.
    [/u][/b][/color][/size] "There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
    During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."
    A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."
    "So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.
    "The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.
    Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
    "I was troubled to learn of this exemption," said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. "My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn't permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate."
    A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    the culture of hypocrisy continues.....

    .....

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday -- after their vote -- that the legislation did not include American Samoa. [/QUOTE]


    Yes, it's obviosuly hypocritical and reeks of corruption.....

    ......but dear Lord, Republicans....READ THE GOD DAMN LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT. :mad:

    You'd think with only one job, serving us the people, they might to at least CONSIDER reading the damn thing before they vote yes/no, eh? :rolleyes:

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    anyone want to bet this is the first time the WashTimes cased about the plight of Samoans?


    but seriously, did anyone expect anything else from the Democratic wing of the Demolican/Repubocrat party? Sure they're slightly better than the other wing of the party, but they're basically the same a-holes

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,372
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]anyone want to bet this is the first time the WashTimes cased about the plight of Samoans?


    but seriously, did anyone expect anything else from the Democratic wing of the Demolican/Repubocrat party? Sure they're slightly better than the other wing of the party, but they're basically the same a-holes[/QUOTE]

    Continuing down this road will lead to a lot of one timers....

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Continuing down this road will lead to a lot of one timers....[/QUOTE]


    hopefully it will lead to drastic changes in the power structure and the rules created by the "two" parties in power and allow for all political parties to have an honest chance at gaining power. Most other democracies (I know we are a republic, but you know what I'm getting at) have multiple parties, not just "two" (which are really one party)

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]hopefully it will lead to drastic changes in the power structure and the rules created by the "two" parties in power and allow for all political parties to have an honest chance at gaining power. Most other democracies (I know we are a republic, but you know what I'm getting at) have multiple parties, not just "two" (which are really one party)[/QUOTE]

    There's nothing that prevents any other party from forming, fielding candidates and gaining power. It would just take longer to build up than most people have patience for.

    It's not like the Republican and Democratic parties have existed since the Revolution - they built up and replaced other parties that were once part of the "big two" (such as the Whigs).

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    29,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]There's nothing that prevents any other party from forming, fielding candidates and gaining power. It would just take longer to build up than most people have patience for.

    It's not like the Republican and Democratic parties have existed since the Revolution - they built up and replaced other parties that were once part of the "big two" (such as the Whigs).[/QUOTE]
    This country is LONG overdue for party realignment as well. If memory serves correctly it's been over 50 years since a signifigant change in major parties took place and it's never taken this long for that to happen before.

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,372
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan]This country is LONG overdue for party realignment as well. If memory serves correctly it's been over 50 years since a signifigant change in major parties took place and it's never taken this long for that to happen before.[/QUOTE]

    That's about how long we have been watching tv as a mass audience also....

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]There's nothing that prevents any other party from forming, fielding candidates and gaining power. It would just take longer to build up than most people have patience for.

    It's not like the Republican and Democratic parties have existed since the Revolution - they built up and replaced other parties that were once part of the "big two" (such as the Whigs).[/QUOTE]


    you do realize all the tweaks and changes they make to ensure they stay in power? More difficult ballot access for smaller parties, almost impossible to be included in debates, etc

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,372
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]you do realize all the tweaks and changes they make to ensure they stay in power? More difficult ballot access for smaller parties, almost impossible to be included in debates, etc[/QUOTE]

    Gerrymandering with the districts......It keeps us (people) out of power

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]There's nothing that prevents any other party from forming, fielding candidates and gaining power. It would just take longer to build up than most people have patience for.

    It's not like the Republican and Democratic parties have existed since the Revolution - they built up and replaced other parties that were once part of the "big two" (such as the Whigs).[/QUOTE]

    Wow. I really would not have expected such a "rose-coloured-glasses" post from YOU of all people......

    Nothing stopping third parties? Really? Money not a factor? Two-party duo-opoly not a factor? Districting not a factor? General Societal ignorance not a factor?

    The world is a different place than it was the last time a new party gained power. And there are quite a few roadblocks in place to keep the two parties in power now.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Wow. I really would not have expected such a "rose-coloured-glasses" post from YOU of all people......

    Nothing stopping third parties? Really? Money not a factor? Two-party duo-opoly not a factor? Districting not a factor? General Societal ignorance not a factor?

    The world is a different place than it was the last time a new party gained power. And there are quite a few roadblocks in place to keep the two parties in power now.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, absolutely. But it is doable. I think part of the problem is that people want to have a national third party appear out of the ether, without working to build it or bothering with little things like local politics.

    And for all the obstacles that have been thrown up, there are also new opportunities as well. Look at it like this - 40 years ago, what are the odds that the two of us would ever have had a chance to debate about [i]anything[/i]?? We'd never have met. Telecommunications advances open up new methods of building the relationships and support necessary to create a new party from the ground up that were simply unavailable 40 years ago. They just need to be harnessed correctly.

    (p.s. vote Akiva in 2016 :D )

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]you do realize all the tweaks and changes they make to ensure they stay in power? More difficult ballot access for smaller parties, almost impossible to be included in debates, etc[/QUOTE]

    Get 65000 signatures or so and you're on the ballot in New York (I believe). And if you can't get 65,000 signatures, what business do you have running for an office that will take hundreds of thousands of votes to win? And if the third parties (like the libertarians) did a better job of marketing themselves, so that a noticeable percentage of the population starting paying attention to them, debate access would open up.

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,696
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Oh, absolutely. But it is doable. I think part of the problem is that people want to have a national third party appear out of the ether, without working to build it or bothering with little things like local politics.

    And for all the obstacles that have been thrown up, there are also new opportunities as well. Look at it like this - 40 years ago, what are the odds that the two of us would ever have had a chance to debate about [i]anything[/i]?? We'd never have met. Telecommunications advances open up new methods of building the relationships and support necessary to create a new party from the ground up that were simply unavailable 40 years ago. They just need to be harnessed correctly.

    (p.s. vote Akiva in 2016 :D )[/QUOTE]

    Ok, better, definitely better.

    The rouble, as I see it, is Local is Local. It WOULD be easy for me to go run for VA Rep in whatever district I'm in as the lone member of the "Warfish Party". Hell, if I was REALLY good looking and smart and a good speaker, I might even get 10 or 20 votes......

    The trouble is, the vast population no longer thinks anything other than Red or Blue is worth voting for. Yes, you get the rebels (a vast minority) who will back a thrid party, but Joe Average who votes, likely ignorant of all but perhaps one or two issues (i.e. my GF Parents, who vote Red on one issue alone, Abortion) has no time for third parties.

    And even IF one manages to get in Locally, what then? It's not like they can spent their time going from state to state to build up their new party, right?

    No....the ONLY way I see a third party ever working, is exactly what you say is impossible (ah, the irony of how things have wound up). Someone, someone REALLY REALLY BIG AND RELEVANT AND FAMOUS AND CHARISMATIC would have to break ranks, and have enough behind him (money, positions, manpower, fame, recognition) and win some kind of high level post on a National Scale. Senator? Maybe. But more likely, President is the only one that has a real chance....and that chance is even then awful slim.

    Trust me, people ARE willing to put int he work to grow a thrid party.....but America seems so lazy today, that they are content to watch the uncivil war that is Red vs. Blue, and get screwed in the bargain. I suppose, as long as "American Idol" reruns on are, what else is there for the great unwashed to really care about, eh?

    It's depressing, and dissapointing. :(

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it]Get 65000 signatures or so and you're on the ballot in New York (I believe). And if you can't get 65,000 signatures, what business do you have running for an office that will take hundreds of thousands of votes to win? And if the third parties (like the libertarians) did a better job of marketing themselves, so that a noticeable percentage of the population starting paying attention to them, debate access would open up.[/QUOTE]


    and you don't find that somewhat restrictive?


    Democrats and Republicans get free advertising/marketing since they hold the power (and will hold onto it at all costs, as we've seen the past few years) and can get anything put into print or on tv with ease


    the system is tilted/fixed and repressive

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Gerrymandering with the districts......It keeps us (people) out of power[/QUOTE]

    Am I wrong, or didn't "your people" just win this past election? Republican gerrymandering and all.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,372
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb]Am I wrong, or didn't "your people" just win this past election? Republican gerrymandering and all.[/QUOTE]

    First of all that was a response to this:

    [I]Originally Posted by Tanginius
    you do realize all the tweaks and changes they make to ensure they stay in power? More difficult ballot access for smaller parties, almost impossible to be included in debates, etc[/I]

    I did want the democrats to win this recent election. The republicans were not doing well by the people at all. The war is a disgrace, the rubber stamping of the Bush agenda was off the charts.

    The people agreed with me that change had to come and it did.

    The issue is now, does the recently elected congress do what the people mandated 35-0? If not there will be a lot of one timers....

    I am an independent. I believe that the gov't should be for the people, by the people and of the people. If not then we need a new gov't. That is why we have elections.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is nothing worse than when a Democrat does something exactly like a Republican. There is no difference anymore. The people in power care about one thing.

    KEEPING THEIR POWER.....

    Yet to see the honest poliictian remain an honest politician.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]the culture of hypocrisy continues.....

    .....[/QUOTE]

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,709
    Post Thanks / Like
    OPne other problem.......... years back I voted for Perot because I didn;t like either Bush ! or Clinton. I wanted to "senda message." What I did was cost the lesser of two evils (imo) Bush the election (at least many of those who voted for Perot were Conservative / Repub and the election was close.)

    Moral to the story: At least at the presidential level and at least for now, you really have only two choices. If I am right, I think Nadar cost the Dems Fla in 2000, so they probably feel the same way about Bush II getting in over Gore.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us