16 RINOs


PDA






4season
April 11, 2013, 09:57 PM
http://www.caintv.com/here-are-the-16-republicans-wh

This is the message that posted on my 2 RINO Senators facebook wall. Make sure anyone on this list of traitors knows they are in trouble.

You say you support the Second Amendment but your vote today was to take the Second Amendment away. GUN CONTROL SHOULD NEVER BE DISCUSSED YOU WORTHLESS RINO. All this bill being discussed is a way to limit legal gun owners rights. There needs to be no discussion on guns. We need the bans already in place repealed, not more limits put on us. I will fight you to the end to make sure you never hold office again.

If you enjoyed reading about "16 RINOs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
OilyPablo
April 12, 2013, 07:21 AM
I think there are a bunch of threads about this. Let us see how they really vote on the bill and amendments..........I know my two D's are useless. Worse, they really are communists.

4season
April 12, 2013, 08:13 AM
Let's not make this a political discussion, those aren't allowed here.

Really? Is this not the Activism board? Why would you think we can't talk politics here? Is that not what we have been doing nonstop since Sandy Hook?

I posted this link so people can see who is the most likely to support whatever pile of garbage the final bill is. If you have a Senator on this list, contact them. Let them know how disappointed in them you are. Sure you can contact your Democrat Senators too, but lets face it, they don't care what you think. Apparently these 16 RINOs don't either. Light a fire in their inbox. Let them learn how to be afraid of what the voters think. And let your friends and family who aren't up to speed on politics know what these worthless idiots are doing. The voters can change Washington, but only if we stop letting our representatives get away with this crap.

Trent
April 12, 2013, 08:18 AM
I'm disappointed in Mark Kirk. I expected better from him.

beatledog7
April 12, 2013, 08:54 AM
The problem that's being demonstrated here is that the members of one of the major parties is almost fully united on gun control (and most other issues) while the other major party's membership is all over the place on gun control (and most other issues).

Some GOP Senators apparently think that the bill is at worst harmless; others seem to believe it can easily be defeated on the floor and therefore should get its full hearing. A few actually like the idea of wresting a few more freedoms from law-abiding Americans. None has made a rational argument regarding how it would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, how it will deter the next, or why we need it for any other reason.

This bill is a perfect example of why we desperately need a new federal law that would require any new bill to be examined for four properties before it can be brought to the House or Senate floor:

1) What existing laws are in place that require this law to bolster them, and can the proposed effect be accomplished by simply enforcing those laws?

2) What existing laws are in place that require this law to counterbalance them, and can the proposed effect be accomplished by simply scrapping those laws?

3) How will the provisions of this bill be enforced, and can we be sure such enforcement will actually accomplish what this bill claims to do while avoiding doing something this bill does not openly intend?

4) Under which of the specifically enumerated powers of Congress does this bill fall?

With this law in place, we'd be set up to start paring down the size of the federal monster and put an end to most of the legislative crap that comes out of Washington.

alsaqr
April 12, 2013, 09:51 AM
Many thanks to the two Democrat senators who defied their leadership and president Obama and voted against cloture.

hso
April 12, 2013, 11:03 AM
Let's just focus on the firearms issue. THR isn't going to get bogged down in other political issues so don't muddy the water with them.

YOU WORTHLESS RINO

Name calling never gets you anywhere when dealing with politicians.

Promising to put your time and money into seeing them defeated in the next election should any further restrictions on our rights become law does.

dbp
April 12, 2013, 11:07 AM
The problem that's being demonstrated here is that the members of one of the major parties is almost fully united on gun control (and most other issues) while the other major party's membership is all over the place on gun control (and most other issues).

Some GOP Senators apparently think that the bill is at worst harmless; others seem to believe it can easily be defeated on the floor and therefore should get its full hearing. A few actually like the idea of wresting a few more freedoms from law-abiding Americans. None has made a rational argument regarding how it would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings, how it will deter the next, or why we need it for any other reason.

This bill is a perfect example of why we desperately need a new federal law that would require any new bill to be examined for four properties before it can be brought to the House or Senate floor:

1) What existing laws are in place that require this law to bolster them, and can the proposed effect be accomplished by simply enforcing those laws?

2) What existing laws are in place that require this law to counterbalance them, and can the proposed effect be accomplished by simply scrapping those laws?

3) How will the provisions of this bill be enforced, and can we be sure such enforcement will actually accomplish what this bill claims to do while avoiding doing something this bill does not openly intend?

4) Under which of the specifically enumerated powers of Congress does this bill fall?

With this law in place, we'd be set up to start paring down the size of the federal monster and put an end to most of the legislative crap that comes out of Washington.
Very good. I would add a fifth. Would it pass Constitutional muster? In other words, would the passage of such bill be in line with the Constitution?

beatledog7
April 12, 2013, 12:01 PM
I would add a fifth. Would it pass Constitutional muster? In other words, would the passage of such bill be in line with the Constitution?

See #4. That's what it would do.

Old Fuff
April 12, 2013, 01:44 PM
Before giving up and hanging certain Republicans and some Democrats out to dry, go read this article from and unlikely source – namely Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-12/republicans-pressed-on-gun-bill-as-some-democrats-waver.html

It turns out that a substantial number of Republicans and some Democrats that voted to send the bills to the Senate floor yesterday for debate and amendments have no intention of voting for the final results unless some big changes are made that would likely be in our favor.

Consider:

President Barack Obama’s bid to enact even a scaled-back version of his gun-safety agenda needs support from many of the 16 Senate Republicans who showed they’re at least willing to debate it. He also must hold onto almost all of the 52 Democrats and independents who joined yesterday’s 68-31 vote to advance the measure for debate.

Snip…

“I oppose the bill, I just cannot support it,” said Baucus of Montana, who faces re-election in 2014. “I’m just not going to block debate on it.”

Several Republicans said they voted yes for the same reason -- to allow the measure to advance -- though they probably won’t back it in a final vote.
“It’s a debate we ought to have,” said Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia. “I don’t think I am going to support the legislation.”

Snip…

The 16 Republican votes to advance the bill signaled that at least some in the party will support the legislation. Still, one of those Republicans, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he won’t back the measure.

Snip…

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York predicted a challenge to gain votes in the coming days.

“Make no mistake about it; we have a tough fight” to pass the gun measure, Schumer said. “The NRA will try and throw all kinds of amendments at us.”


Snip…

“I think it’s at the least embarrassing, and more than that, a bit of a problem, that Democrats can’t get every Democrat,” Rothenberg said. “It becomes easier for Republicans to just to say ‘look at Pryor or Begich.’”


So before coming down hard on those that are really on our side, it might be a better idea to back off until it becomes more clear exactly who is on what side, and we’ll find that out when they take the final vote, and not before.

Up until now opponents in both parties haven't had the chance to do anything. They all passed out of Committee on a straight party vote (10 Democrats in favor, 8 Republicans opposed). Now on the Senate floor they can offer amendments that could ultimately kill them.

X-Rap
April 12, 2013, 03:15 PM
But what did they pass out of committee? An idea? I would like to see the bill they are debating and so far I don't know if exists on paper.

10mm Mike
April 12, 2013, 03:44 PM
Pryor is just trying to get some brownie points so he might stand a chance at reelection and hope that people forget about his role in the obamacare debacle.

While he is not overtly anti-gun, he isn't pro gun either, and this one token vote shouldn't change anyone's opinion on him.

I'd also like to add a 5th part to beatledogs law: where if any law (or part of any law) is found to be unconstitutional, every congressman that voted for it should immediately serve no less than 5 years in prison (amongst the general population) and can no longer serve in any political office, and all health and retirement benefits they might have received are forfeit.

4season
April 13, 2013, 10:02 AM
I'd also like to add a 5th part to beatledogs law: where if any law (or part of any law) is found to be unconstitutional, every congressman that voted for it should immediately serve no less than 5 years in prison (amongst the general population) and can no longer serve in any political office, and all health and retirement benefits they might have received are forfeit.

I like this idea but that would require us to first fix the justice system. Don't forget the Supreme Court already help up Obamacare even though it is unconstitutional.

And to the point that they will discuss it but not support the final bill: Why is a discussion even necessary? It is a bad bill, any bill that adds new gun regulation is bad, therefore it should never be discussed. I heard comments like "It was the victims of Sandy Hook pressuring the Senate for a vote." That is typical Democrat tactics of never let a tragedy go to waste, always advancing their agenda. The way to respond to Sandy Hook is to put guns back in schools by either lifting the gun free zones to allow teachers and school officials to go armed, or by putting armed guards in schools. Maybe even someone will try to add this to the bill (I doubt it) but to even discuss the "Obama Gun Bill" is itself a compromise. We know that they will try to add the Feinstein ban back into the bill, so why even give them a chance? The media in this country will be spinning the argument the whole time, showing Democrats as compassionate and caring while they march "victims" of "gun violence" across as reasons why guns are bad, and then demonizing Republicans as heartless and uncaring when they mention that all the gun laws don't matter to criminals. Why set themselves up for failure?

Let me put this in simpler terms. By allowing the bill to be discussed, the Republicans are digging a hole that they didn't need to escape from. Would a team go into the Super Bowl and let the other team dominate the first 3 quarters so they can attempt a 4th quarter comeback? This would be a very stupid strategy for a football game. The Republicans just had a chance to intercept the ball in the 1st half and run it back for a touchdown, but instead of trying, or even knocking the ball down, they tipped it to the Democrats who just scored a touchdown. I am simply pointing out that it is a stupid play.

csspecs
April 14, 2013, 03:52 AM
By allowing it to come out for debate the senators get to appear "reasonable". In that they can be open to making the world a safer place through the more strict doting of I's and crossing of T's.... And then not be able to come to an agreement which they can use to their benefit later.

OldMac
April 14, 2013, 08:42 AM
Unfortunately, Tennessee's two elitist multimillionaire Senators are globalists that will back the UN Arms Treaty. Alexander is an old fart that will not face another election. Corker is a crooked developer that just got elected again so he will not face voters for five more years. Plenty of time to recover from this. I suspect they will fight hard for gun rights of their professional body gaurd entourage. After all, why do common citizens need guns. These Senators understand that Real safety is living in gated communities, travelling with 24/7 armed guards, and dissarming all the commoners around you.

Yo Mama
April 14, 2013, 10:49 AM
Let me put this in simpler terms. By allowing the bill to be discussed, the Republicans are digging a hole that they didn't need to escape from.

I don't know if you noticed, but we lost the last election big time. This is the result.

hso
April 14, 2013, 02:23 PM
The fact that a Senator voted for cloture to prevent a filibuster isn't the same as voting for whatever bill does finally develop.

What it does mean is that they warrant close scrutiny compared to those that didn't support cloture and should any of them vote for restrictions they shouldn't see another term.

Green Lantern
April 15, 2013, 10:58 PM
/\ What hso said. If they've been pro-2A before, don't toss them under the bus quite yet. But nothing wrong to have the trajectory and velocity planned out just in case....

If you enjoyed reading about "16 RINOs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!