GOPers Use Porn Vote To Kill Jobs Bill

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

In an example of Republican obstructionism rendered beautiful by its simplicity, the GOP yesterday killed a House bill that would increase funding for scientific research and math and science education by forcing Democrats to vote in favor of federal employees viewing pornography.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the ranking member of the House science committee, introduced a motion to recommit, a last-ditch effort to change a bill by sending it back to the committee with mandatory instructions.

In this case, Republicans included a provision that would bar the federal government from paying the salaries of employees who've been disciplined for viewing pornography at work.

To proceed with the bill and bring it to a final vote, Democrats would have had to vote against the motion to recommit, and against the porn ban.

But they didn't have the stomach for it, and 121 Democrats jumped ship and voted with Republicans to kill the bill.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/gop-kills-science-jobs-bill-by-forcing-dems-to-vote-for-porn.php?ref=fpa

[florida08]

1. oh fudge

thought I was going to see a pic. It's not their stomach that's the problem

[mikelgb]

2. in the porn industry Democrats are called bottoms

some are fluffers

[hedgehog]

3. Seriously, the Democrats in Congress need to set up a good

Web site to explain these tactics and just ignore them to vote the proper way. Get someone who has a sharp eye for satire to do the scripts.

[Igel]

5. It's a non-partisan ploy.

We constantly hear (D) say the (R) voted against some measure and the (R) say they were voting against some other measure in the same bill.

Of course, we hear the (R) say the same sorts of things about the (D).

In both cases, those voting "no" say loud and clear what they were voting against, but it's a question of whose misdirection gets coverage. To make explicit this kind of technique would, in the long run, be counterproductive to both parties. Instead we heal the whining of the loser of the latest skirmish in in the on-going narrative war.

I've said it before and I'll probably go to my grave saying it: Bills should be minimal in size and deal with one issue and only one issue. The call to divide the measure should be non-debatable and not subject to a vote. Instead, we get measures that include everything except the kitchen sink, just to make sure that the 61% needed will vote for it--even if one provision gets 20% of the way to the total, the second an additional 8%, the third an additional 5%, and by the time you're struggling to get a sufficient majority you're adding multiple provisions per vote.

This is principle, not partisanship.

The proposition process in some states, the way of putting issues to a voter referendum, is stunningly right on this point: Each has to deal with one and only one issue, and any referendum that passes but includes more than one issue is ruled invalid, even post hoc. Yes, it means that you can't wheel and deal, striking bargains of a vote in exchange for some favor, playing off special interests and constituents to build a fake majority around a mega-bill which dislikes most of the bill's provisions. Some say legislation is like making sausge. I always disliked the idea of salivary glands, trachea, and noses in my sausage.

[Lagomorph]

17. If we did that...

...our government would be running in the black.

They'd stilling be screaming their heads off, but we might be able to actually fund some of the great ideas I've seen in these forums.

[MessiahRp]

4. How did this even get attached to the bill?

Don't we have enough a majority to prevent these kind of add ons?

Rp

[AlinPA]

8. It was not added to the bill, I understand it was part of the motion to re-commit, i.e., to send the

bill back to committee. If you vote no, the original bill goes through. If you agree with the provision (the porn thing in this case), you are voting to kill the bill by sending it back to committee. Congress has stupid rules.

[Arkana]

6. Sounds like the GOP could do

with a visit from Kate and Trekkiemonster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JxcBH_rA2Y

[AlinPA]

7. Stop that dang scientific research and math and science education. Gawd dint want

us to larn nuthin about syence. That reeserch ain't no good neither, buncha eggheads tryin to figger out about Gawd's creeashun.

[fatbuckel]

9. Nice misspelling,but Rebubs would`nt misspell that good.

[Festivito]

15. ...but, he didn't misspell good.

Neither of you misspelled good.

[dsn]

10. The Republicans are SO glad I'm not a congressman right now

I would have just attached a rider barring the federal government from paying the salaries of Members of Congress who have been caught in sex scandals, and offered to remove it as soon as the porn rider was also gone.

[FailureToCommunicate]

11. +1 And welcome.

[Skratchez]

12. According to a recent survey, Utah

topped all other states in paid for online pornography: http://blogs.computerworld.com/online_porn

Hypocrisy combined with the stupidity of using a credit or debit card to PAY for porn, on the internet.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

[onager]

16. Yep, also proven by the Great Provo Porn Bust...

I guess it was a slow day for the Provo prosecutor when he filed this bonehead case:

NY TIMES:

PROVO, Utah — The video-store chain that Larry W. Peterman owned in this valley of wide streets and ubiquitous churches carried the kind of rentals found anywhere in the country — from Disney classics to films about the sexual adventures of nurses. Mr. Peterman built a thriving business until he was charged last year with selling obscene material and faced the prospect of bankruptcy and jail.

Just before the trial, Mr. Peterman's lawyer, Randy Spencer, came up with an idea while looking out the window of the courtroom at the Provo Marriott. He sent an investigator to the hotel to record all the sex films that a guest could obtain through the hotel's pay-per-view channels. He then obtained records on how much erotic fare people here were buying from their cable and satellite television providers.

As it turned out, people in Utah County, a place that often boasts of being the most conservative area in the nation, were disproportionately large consumers of the very videos that prosecutors had labeled obscene and illegal...

It took only a few minutes for the jury to find Mr. Peterman not guilty on all charges.

:rofl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/technology/23PORN.html?pagewanted=1?pagewanted=1

[Joe Bacon]

13. So how many Republicans have viewed gay porn?

I'm sure there are a whole bunch of those closet queen Republicans who have!

[alp227]

14. A few weeks later: "Where are the jobs, Democrats?"

Answer: THE REPUBLICANS EFFECTIVELY SET UP THE DEMOCRATS TO KILL THE BILL BY INTIMIDATION. The intimidation is that pay revocation for wanking while you work. Please, bookmark this blogpost and call your representative if your representative bent down for the G-Low-P.

[daleo]

18. This is sleazy on so many levels

Some porn producer ought to parody it.

[depakid]

19. Interesting how such parliamentary manuevers don't work when Republicans control the house....

[maxrandb]

20. That could be because

Democrats actually give a shit about our country, while Repukes are like the spoiled brat who takes him marbles and goes home when the game is not going his way.

[depakid]

22. More likely because they'd find a way to disallow the amendment

[marshall]

21. What about the scientific research/study of porn?

Who's going to fund that?