WHOA!WHOA! wait a minute! 2 questions

[wideopen]

I'm starting to see a pattern here. We seem to keep getting all worked up about certain issues here (the Conyers hearing prompted this post) but when they actually come to fruition they turn out to be not what we anticipated /discussed. The Kerry DSM speech is another recent example. Now my questions; why did the 20 members not sign the lynching bill? Is it possible there is another reason besides being unapologetic pro-lynchists? I'm just asking, before we crucify these people, if maybe there is another explanation because the thought of anyone in our gov. bold enough to hold this view and express it publicly is unfathomable. Question 2; How in the hell can repugs prevent Conyers from holding his hearing in the congressional hearing room? Did we know this was to be the situation a few days ago? If this hearing is held anywhere else I think it will lose considerable merit and be exponentially more difficult to get covered by cspan and MSM, therefore I don't think it will have near the impact we have been anticipating.
I know,I know, more than 2 questions-

[MsTryska]

1. Maybe they voted No on the lynching bill

in silent assent to what Dr Dean has been telling the media.


it's a move designed to show america that yes the Republican party is in fact a party of/for White Christians.

:shrug:

[wideopen]

3. That's what I'm asking

Did they vote no or didn't vote or what. Is it possible they weren't there or someting? One of them is my senator so before I fire off a nasty letter I'd like to know the facts.

[SoCalDem]

6. It's always about their "base"....and they are about the BASEST

people on the planet. These are the ones who are still fighting the "war between the states"..and to some degree, they think they are winning it..(maybe they are:(..)

[wideopen]

9. I hate to

think that we still have a majority of people in certain areas of the country that would condone their representative voting like that but maybe thats the case.

[politicaholic]

2. Here's a good explanation...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3857550&mesg_id=3857974

Look at response #12 by Jobycom

[wideopen]

5. sounds reasonable

and I would be inclined to believe that could be the case, but is that the same reason the others didn't sign?

[politicaholic]

7. Oh, the others didn't sign because they're old school bigots...

who name the tree infront of their houses things like "'Ol Lynchie".

[wideopen]

10. If so,

they just made it apparent. We need to check out how they voted on other race issues in the past.

[atreides1]

4. Why??

Perhaps they felt that signing it would conflict with the beliefs of their constituents, apologizing for something that people would still do if they could get away with it, isn't good politics.

Maybe it's nothing more than the fact that they don't think that lynchings were wrong, and they are proud that the lynching of blacks
is part of an aceepted tradition!!!

Haven't you been paying attention, the Repugs can do anything they damn well please. Look at the fact that they impeached a President who was a Democrat simply because he lied about getting a blow job.
Yet, when a Repuke president lies and the result is the deaths of
American military personnel and Afghan and Iraqi citizens, in a war that was a war of choice, they pat him on the back and say what great job he's doing.

And 59 million brain dead, kool-aid drinking sheep, voted for the man, so that gays can't get married.

That's how they can do it, because they are drunk with power, and it has corrupted them to their very souls, and anyone who supports them
has as much innocent blood on their hands as do the perpetrators of this fraudulent war.

[wideopen]

8. Perhaps thats the reason

I'm every bit, if not more, pissed off and appalled at the audacity of the repugs but I think we need to remain objective on all issues until we have the facts. I'm not condoning their behavior I just like to have all the facts before deciding on anything.

[wideopen]

11. Nobody care to take a stab at Question 2 & 3?

[Just Me]

12. You never identified the pattern.

:rofl:

I WONDER WHY????

:rofl:

You must be pulling us into something }(

[wideopen]

13. Like what?

I guess 2 examples wasn't enough, or you haven't been following either of those issues closely enough to understand what I mean.

[Sydnie]

14. As for question 2

Conyers is not the chairman. He can not demand that the room be made available for what is being considered a "partisan" hearing. This is no different than when he held his election investigation meeting in another room, other than the "official" hearing room and when he held round 2 of those hearings in Ohio as well. Getting those hearings the other day was due to a little used rule in the house. Since there were hearings going on concerning that topic, they could request that hearing the other day. The right is not investigating the DSM, so they can't demand access to the room and the committee with the rule they used for the hearing about the patriot act.

As for question 1 -- they just don't get that it's the right thing to do. Perhaps they think that once they apologize (internment as an example) there will be a "price tag" attached and they want to get on the record as not supporting a government "donation" to the victims of yet another shameful chapter in our history. One that the lawmakers of those days were woefully quiet about dealing with, I might add. They didn't openly support lynchings, but they didn't do much to stop it when they could have. It's all about the money.

[wideopen]

15. Thank you

I wasn't sure if this was legal, it certainly doesn't seem fair.
Q1- I guess I just need to accept the fact that maybe their constituencies would back them on this.

[Sydnie]

16. Not much of what the right does is fair

but it usually at least stays legal, if just by a hair. What Sensenbrenner did the other day could have cast a shadow across that gray line though. We will have to keep the voices loud until we can find out if he crossed that line or not.

Seems like obstruction of justice to me. They were sworn in and testifying to a legally called committee to investigate such matters. Silencing them might just have done him in.

One can hope, right? :hi:

[wideopen]

18. I don't see any

way it could be construed by anyone that what he doing could be helpful to our democracy.

[librechik]

17. "they" probably don't believe in much of anything

it's loathsome, racist Xtian partisans in Assplug, AL and the like that they fear more than Bush himself!

They are also desperate to keep it secret, so tell all your friends!

They issued a new Senate Rult today which now says "minority parties" can't hold hearings in Capitol rooms. That's "changing the tone" for ya!