House Speaker Vote Live 2nd Thread

[sneakypete]

I agree.  Passing those 12 individual appropriations bills is the way to go.  That's going to be difficult to do under these rules, and with only a 4 vote cushion, but perhaps it could be done if the entire caucus was committed to actually passing those bills.  But here's the problem:

You seem to have very little interest in actually passing those those 12 smaller appropriations bills.  You just view having that rule as a way to stymie Democrats, not a way to actually pass legislation.  And I suspect Gaetz and Co,. agree with you.  Hope I'm wrong, but I suspect not.

In any case, what that means is that when it gets down to the wire in September/October, and there still are a few of the biggest bills outstanding, what do you suppose is going to happen when the Freedom Caucus refuses to budge on anything?  Well...the Rules can be changed by a majority of the House, and a "Speaker in a straightjacket" isn't going to be able to stop it even if he wanted to.  And you'll have a half-done or more Nancy Mace types unwilling to be held responsible for the government shutting down, and they'll cave.  So you'll end up with a coalition of 212 Democrats and a half-dozen plus Republicans amending the rules, and ramming through that last-minute omnibus spending package.  And because the Freedom Caucus will have made themselves irrelevant by refusing to compromise on anything, the Democrats will hold all the cards.  So rather than getting the most conservative bills that the RINO's will accept, we'll get the most leftist ones that they'll accept.

If you want separate appropriations bills to work, you have to start with the goal of actually getting them passed.  But that doesn't appear to be the case.

@Maj. Bill Martin

NAILED IT!

Where the HELL did this idea of gaining nothing is better than gaining something?

Every little bit helps,and as you  keep adding rocks to your pile,your rock pile will grow bigger.

The FACT that the left used this method to take over total control of the country proves this.

We (conservatives) are NOT going to take back control of the country and restory sanity  in one election cycle,REGARDLESS of who gets elected as President.

We MUST have a majority of the votes in order to dominate,and that is NOT going to happen in just one election cycle.

THIS is why I want Trump in the WH for 4 years as President that knows he is only going to be there for 4 years,and who STILL wants to go down in the history books as "The President that saved America as an independent nation".

It is also why I want (at this point) to see DeSantis take over the WH when Trump leaves. If 4 years of Trump and 8 years of DeSantis can't get America back on track,it can't be done.

And I am confident that NO President can do this in a single term anymore. We have just slide too far down the rabbit hole for that to be possible.

And do NOT forget the FACT that NO President can do all that by themself. We need to follow up by supporting and voting for local conservative candidates. PLEASE note that I did NOT write "Republican candidates" because there are just too many RINO's in office for the word "Republican" to have any real meaning anymore. I am hoping this will no longer be true after a second DeSantis term.

[sneakypete]

I'm all for it if they're actually going to try to pass those bills.  But there's a bit of "this is all a facade because we're really going to try to stop anything from getting passed" attitude to this.

I don't think having the right intentions or goals is enough.  I think you have to actually think through a plan for getting there.  As I said, this might work if the Freedom Caucus is willing to make some compromises to get those 12 separate appropriations bills passed.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Who the hell do you think you are to pop up here and start posting reason and logic?

Yew sum kinda trublemakir?

Weez wachin yew,boy!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

NAILED IT!

Where the HELL did this idea of gaining nothing is better than gaining something?

Every little bit helps,and as you  keep adding rocks to your pile,your rock pile will grow bigger.

The FACT that the left used this method to take over total control of the country proves this.

We (conservatives) are NOT going to take back control of the country and restory sanity  in one election cycle,REGARDLESS of who gets elected as President.

We MUST have a majority of the votes in order to dominate,and that is NOT going to happen in just one election cycle.

THIS is why I want Trump in the WH for 4 years as President that knows he is only going to be there for 4 years,and who STILL wants to go down in the history books as "The President that saved America as an independent nation".

It is also why I want (at this point) to see DeSantis take over the WH when Trump leaves. If 4 years of Trump and 8 years of DeSantis can't get America back on track,it can't be done.

And I am confident that NO President can do this in a single term anymore. We have just slide too far down the rabbit hole for that to be possible.

And do NOT forget the FACT that NO President can do all that by themself. We need to follow up by supporting and voting for local conservative candidates. PLEASE note that I did NOT write "Republican candidates" because there are just too many RINO's in office for the word "Republican" to have any real meaning anymore. I am hoping this will no longer be true after a second DeSantis term.

The way we increase our share of the vote is to show people that we can act responsibly in accordance with our priority of limiting government.  Deliberately steering the train off the tracks to derail things because "doing nothing is good" does the opposite.  We'll lose the swing voters necessary to expand our majority, and we'll never get where we want to go.

Pass those 12 bills, and show it can be done.  Be willing to make reasonable compromises to hold the GOP majority together.  Cut out the over the top rhetoric that bothers that huge segment of the electorate that doesn't follow politics obsessively like we do.  Capitalize on the issues where voters agree with us without sounding like we're just looking to antagonize.  Expand the majority.

The Freedom Caucus has to recognize that once the Speaker is elected, they are no longer the key swing block.  So their goal should be to try to mend fences with those at the other end of the GOP spectrum in Congress, because they are the ones that are going to determine what actually gets passed.  Gaetz' spoiled brat aura won't play well with most people, and is going to lose conservatives support rather the gain it.

Fighting hard isn't enough.  We have to fight smart.

[Hoodat]

I agree.  Passing those 12 individual appropriations bills is the way to go.

Glad to finally have you on board.

But here's the problem:

You seem to have very little interest in actually passing those those 12 smaller appropriations bills.  You just view having that rule as a way to stymie Democrats, not a way to actually pass legislation.

Nonsense.  I have a lot of interest in passing those 12 smaller appropriations bills without all the extra crap that ends up in the omnibus bills.  The smaller bills should be limited to the subject at hand.  My goal is to place limitations on spending.

In any case, what that means is that when it gets down to the wire in September/October, and there still are a few of the biggest bills outstanding, what do you suppose is going to happen when the Freedom Caucus refuses to budge on anything?

The Uniparty majority will pass the bills anyway.  No rules changes needed.  But at least there will be at least a 72-hr cushion between introduction and vote.  And the process will be repeated 12 times, with limitations placed on each round.  That is far better than what we had under Pelosi.

Well...the Rules can be changed by a majority of the House, and a "Speaker in a straightjacket" isn't going to be able to stop it even if he wanted to.  And you'll have a half-done or more Nancy Mace types unwilling to be held responsible for the government shutting down, and they'll cave.  So you'll end up with a coalition of 212 Democrats and a half-dozen plus Republicans amending the rules, and ramming through that last-minute omnibus spending package.

That is an admission on your part that the new rules now in place block would block such a scenario.  Nice to hear you finally acknowledge that.

As for an attempt to the rules back to the way they were (rules which you have openly supported) in order to bring spending back up to Pelosi levels again, there is nothing in that which discredits the new rules.  It only confirms that the new rules prevent an omnibus, and that Republicans would have to expose their true colors by joining with Democrats to put back in place Spendapalooza.
 

So rather than getting the most conservative bills that the RINO's will accept, we'll get the most leftist ones that they'll accept.

Pure horseshit.  These "irrelevant" Conservatives sure as heck were relevant when it came to changing the rules.  And they were willing to compromise by giving McCarthy his coveted throne in exchange for those rule changes.  It is pure nonsensical idiocy to claim that Democrats will be holding all the cards  because of 20 Conservatives demanding something Conservative in exchange for their votes.

So rather than getting the most conservative bills that the RINO's will accept, we'll get the most leftist ones that they'll accept.

Horseshit piled on top of horseshit.  Conservatives shifting the rules towards Conservatism will result in even more liberal legislation than we had under Pelosi.  Was their any thought process at all that traversed your synapses while you were typing that?  You're worse than Biden on foreign policy.  Every prediction you have made so for has turned out to be wrong.  Yet here you are again doubling down.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1612504979536810018

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That is an admission on your part that the new rules now in place block would block such a scenario.  Nice to hear you finally acknowledge that.

Again, if we get into late September/October, and it doesn't look like there is enough movement, you will see the Dems make common cause with the RINO's, suspend whatever rules they need, and pass a big, chunky bill in it with a lot of stuff we don't want.   And the reality is that those rules are going to make it harder to get those bills passed in time because of the greater ability to offer amendments, and the Speaker lacking the power to do anything about delay tactics from the Democrats.   That is why I was not in favor of imposing all of those rule changes in this session where we only have a tiny cushion in the House.

As for an attempt to the rules back to the way they were (rules which you have openly supported) in order to bring spending back up to Pelosi levels again, there is nothing in that which discredits the new rules.  It only confirms that the new rules prevent an omnibus, and that Republicans would have to expose their true colors by joining with Democrats to put back in place Spendapalooza.

The new rules only prevent an omnibus unless/until they are suspended, and you've got the Nancy Mace crowd that wouldn't be "exposing" anything.  They're open about being moderates.  And if we don't keep them locked into the caucus, they'll side with the Democrats before shutting down the government.

Pure horseshit.  These "irrelevant" Conservatives sure as heck were relevant when it came to changing the rules.  And they were willing to compromise by giving McCarthy his coveted throne in exchange for those rule changes.  It is pure nonsensical idiocy to claim that Democrats will be holding all the cards  because of 20 Conservatives demanding something Conservative in exchange for their votes.

They were relevant within the caucus because their votes were needed to give the GOP a majority.   They are much less relevant in the House as a whole because majorities can be formed without them.  If Gaetz tries his smirking "you have to deal with ME" act when it comes time to pass legislation, conservativism is screwed.

Horseshit piled on top of horseshit.  Conservatives shifting the rules towards Conservatism will result in even more liberal legislation than we had under Pelosi.

No, I didn't say that.  Regardless of any changes to the Rules, this House was going to be more conservative than the last because Pelosi/Jeffries aren't in charge.  The question is how much more conservative.  If you want maximum conservative results and not just maximum conservative posturing, we're going to need to see a much more flexible Freedom Caucus than we just saw because majorities can be formed without them.  Is their priority going to be passing the most conservative bills that can be passed, or just being inflexible so they can campaign on "standing strong", regardless of what actually ends up passing?

That is going to be the key to whether or not this whole thing works.

[catfish1957]

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1612504979536810018

I hope they got film of his temper tantrum.

[Hoodat]

The way we increase our share of the vote is to show people that we can act responsibly in accordance with our priority of limiting government.

And your definition of 'acting responsibly' is to keep the Pelosi rules in place.

btw, the reason the GOP share of the vote is as low as it is is because all the GOP has offered is Democrat-lite.  And THAT is what alienates GOP voters.  Recent polling shows that a majority of Republican voters applaud what these 20 House members have accomplished.  Yet you fought against the majority of the very constituency you wish to increase.  How do you reconcile that?

Deliberately steering the train off the tracks to derail things because "doing nothing is good" does the opposite.

But that's not what happened.  The 20 Conservatives steered the train back onto the track of the original foundation.  You were the one arguing the opposite.

We'll lose the swing voters necessary to expand our majority, and we'll never get where we want to go.

The only reason Republicans got a majority is because of Statehouse redistricting.  They sure as hell didn't get it by saying they were going to do business as usual just like Pelosi.  Your average Republican voter has longed for years for Republicans to make a stand and do something to restrain runaway DC.  And these 20 did exactly that.  THAT is what Republican voters want.  Contrast that against where it is you want to take them.

Pass those 12 bills, and show it can be done.

This possibility exists ONLY because of the hard-won gains of the 20 Conservatives (which you opposed every step of the way).

Be willing to make reasonable compromises to hold the GOP majority together.  Cut out the over the top rhetoric that bothers that huge segment of the electorate that doesn't follow politics obsessively like we do.  Capitalize on the issues where voters agree with us without sounding like we're just looking to antagonize.  Expand the majority.

Not a single thing here discredits or dissuades adoption of these rule changes.

The Freedom Caucus has to recognize that once the Speaker is elected, they are no longer the key swing block.  So thier goal should be to try to mend fences with those at the other end of the GOP spectrum in Congress, because they are the ones that are going to determine what actually gets passed.  Gaetz' spoiled brat aura won't play well with most people, and is going to lose conservatives support rather the gain it.

Fighting hard isn't enough.  We have to fight smart.

The Freedom Caucus has to recognize that once the Speaker is elected, they are no longer the key swing block.

They never were the key swing block.  They were a small minority in an ocean of Unipartyhood that took advantage of a rare opportunity.

So thier goal should be to try to mend fences with those at the other end of the GOP spectrum in Congress

Mend fences with the Uniparty?  How should they go about doing that?  Sign off on another increase in Planned Parenthood funding?

Gaetz' spoiled brat aura won't play well with most people, and is going to lose conservatives support rather the gain it.

Fighting hard isn't enough.  We have to fight smart.

Looks like Gaetz outsmarted you.  You had already surrendered before the first ballot was cast, yet Gaetz secured a Conservative outcome with only six solid votes.

[Hoodat]

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/status/1612504979536810018

But . . . but . . . but the only way for Republicans to increase their majority is to attack Conservatives.  Right?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I hope they got film of his temper tantrum.

Crenshaw may have screwed himself with his remarks about terrorists.  A good example of how tough-guy rhetoric can backfire.

[Bigun]

But . . . but . . . but the only way for Republicans to increase their majority is to attack Conservatives.  Right?

That tells me that there are more conservatives in the Republican caucus than many here imagined.

[Hoodat]

Again, if we get into late September/October, and it doesn't look like there is enough movement, you will see the Dems make common cause with the RINO's, suspend whatever rules they need

Again, they won't have to suspend the rules to get Republicans to turn on their Democrat-light neon nametags.

And the reality is that those rules are going to make it harder to get those bills passed in time because of the greater ability to offer amendments, and the Speaker lacking the power to do anything about delay tactics from the Democrats.

Difficulty in passing legislation is just as our Founding Fathers intended.  I tend to side with original intent instead of siding with getting along with Democrats.

That is why I was not in favor of imposing all of those rule changes in this session where we only have a tiny cushion in the House.

You were in favor of keeping the same rules Pelosi put in place that have guaranteed nothing but steep spending increases for the past four years.  To hell with that.

The new rules only prevent an omnibus unless/until they are suspended, and you've got the Nancy Mace crowd that wouldn't be "exposing" anything.

So you are against the new rules changes because of what could happen if we got rid of the new rules changes.  Got it.

And if we don't keep them locked into the caucus, they'll side with the Democrats before shutting down the government.

So you are placing the blame on Conservatives when Republicans choose to reveal their true Democrat-lite nature?  Really?

If Gaetz tries his smirking "you have to deal with ME" act when it comes time to pass legislation, conservativism is screwed.

The greatest threat to Conservatism is people like you demanding we not do anything Conservative lest Democrat-lite Republicans get upset.  People like you championing the use of Republican PAC money to defeat Conservatives in primaries.  People like you claiming that after winning power we must leave everything that Pelosi put in place because somehow more people will choose Democrat-lite over Democrat.

[Hoodat]

That tells me that there are more conservatives in the Republican caucus than many here imagined.

Go figure.  And after this rules fight, they are beginning to step up out of the cellar.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And your definition of 'acting responsibly' is to keep the Pelosi rules in place.

We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion here.  To me, what actually matters in the end is the legislation that passes the House, not what the Rules are regarding how that legislation gets enacted.  Many of those rules have little to do with "conservatism" at all.  They're just facially neutral rules, and whether their impact is "conservative" or "liberal" depends on who is using them, and why.  For example, making it easier to offer amendments.  Seems to me that which amendments are being offered, and by whom, is what determines whether they are conservative or not.

Claiming victory because of rules changes is wildly premature.  Victory will only be discernable when actual legislation starts getting passed.

btw, the reason the GOP share of the vote is as low as it is is because all the GOP has offered is Democrat-lite.  And THAT is what alienates GOP voters.  Recent polling shows that a majority of Republican voters applaud what these 20 House members have accomplished.  Yet you fought against the majority of the very constituency you wish to increase.  How do you reconcile that?

Well first, there's nothing to reconcile.  You're talking about Republican voters, and I'm talking about swing voters.  Second, I think a lot of folks don't even know what those rules are.  But the rules had the label of "conservative" attached to them, so people buy into it, and respond to the poll questions based on that belief that all those rules are "conservative".  But they aren't.  A whole bunch of them are not inherently liberal or conservative, and some can be easily misused/exploited by the minority part to deliberately disrupt and delay the legislative process.  Just because a lot of folks don't realize that doesn't mean that I'm going to change my opinion.  Because in the end, it's what actually gets enacted that will matter, not what rules were in place to get us there.

Mend fences with the Uniparty?  How should they go about doing that?  Sign off on another increase in Planned Parenthood funding?

Good example.  Mace is on record right now as supporting increased birth control funding.  I don't know if there are others like that, but here's how I see it.  If there are enough Republicans who share her view to sink our bill if we lose them, and increased birth control funding can hold their votes on that issue, it might be the smart move.   On the flip side, if we say "no", then they may just run to the Democrats and settle for that exact increase in Planned Parenthood funding that we don't want to see.

[Hoodat]

Claiming victory because of rules changes is wildly premature.  Victory will only be discernable when actual legislation starts getting passed.

Interesting.  Just from Conservatives choosing to engage in this fight, you tried to convince us that the GOP would lose both houses of Congress and the White House in 2024.  Now that it's over, you suggest that we need to wait and see?

Good example.  Mace is on record right now as supporting increased birth control funding.  I don't know if there are others like that, but here's how I see it.  If there are enough Republicans who share her view to sink our bill if we lose them, and increased birth control funding can hold their votes on that issue, it might be the smart move.   On the flip side, if we say "no", then they may just run to the Democrats and settle for that exact increase in Planned Parenthood funding that we don't want to see.

THIS is what is wrong with the Establishment GOP.  THIS is why Democrat-lite won't win elections.  And THIS is how Democrats get Republicans to do their bidding year after year after year.

This is why we have a $32 trillion debt.
This is why we have open borders.
This is why we fill Democrat campaign coffers with government spending.
This is why we give free health care to half the population, and make the other half pay for it.
This is why Democrats get every single thing they want, and then some, regardless of who is in power.

'Fear' is a sin, both morally and politically.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You were in favor of keeping the same rules Pelosi put in place that have guaranteed nothing but steep spending increases for the past four years.  To hell with that.

The rules weren't the reason there were steep spending increases.  Those increases happened because Trump didn't believe in controlling spending because he liked buying votes just as much as did Democrats.

So you are placing the blame on Conservatives when Republicans choose to reveal their true Democrat-lite nature?  Really?

If conservatives are unwilling to make the compromises necessary to form a working majority, the RINO's run to the Democrats because they don't favor a government shutdown, and the result is a more liberal piece of legislation than we could otherwise have gotten, then yes, I'd blame the conservatives for prioritizing conservative posturing and rhetoric over conservative results.

The greatest threat to Conservatism is people like you demanding we not do anything Conservative lest Democrat-lite Republicans get upset.  People like you championing the use of Republican PAC money to defeat Conservatives in primaries.  People like you claiming that after winning power we must leave everything that Pelosi put in place because somehow more people will choose Democrat-lite over Democrat.

You're quite an unpleasant fellow.  Has anyone ever told you that?

In any case, you need to improve your reading.  Because in terms of the PAC spending, I said this upthread:

That's actually one of the things I liked.  I don't think it is proper for funds donated to a House PAC to be used to pick and choose between GOP candidates in primaries.  It should be used to defeat Democrats in general elections.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to think I opposed that.

[Hoodat]

In any case, you need to improve your reading.  Because in terms of the PAC spending, I said this upthread:

After the battle was won, of course.  But during the fight?  Not so much.  You were decidedly against those of us here supporting it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Interesting.  Just from Conservatives choosing to engage in this fight, you tried to convince us that the GOP would lose both houses of Congress and the White House in 2024.  Now that it's over, you suggest that we need to wait and see?

No, I didn't.  You're thinking of someone else.  As a matter of fact, I posted that it was too early to assume it would have that extreme an impact in 2024 because there likely would be other issues that arise between then and now that would be more important.  I do think the shitshow that the whole thing turned into will have some negative impact, but it is impossible to quantify at this point. 

THIS is what is wrong with the Establishment GOP.  THIS is why Democrat-lite won't win elections.  And THIS is how Democrats get Republicans to do their bidding year after year after year.

This is why we have a $32 trillion debt.
This is why we have open borders.
This is why we fill Democrat campaign coffers with government spending.
This is why we give free health care to half the population, and make the other half pay for it.
This is why Democrats get every single thing they want, and then some, regardless of who is in power.

'Fear' is a sin, both morally and politically.

So is ignoring reality.  If the choice is between placating enough Republicans to hold the majority with $800M in birth control, versus having those same Republicans join with the Dems and cause an extra $50B in spending, I'm choosing that first course 10 times out of 10.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

After the battle was won, of course.  But during the fight?  Not so much.  You were decidedly against those of us here supporting it.

As usual, you're confused.  I never said I was against the Freedom Caucus trying to get some concessions, and some were given before the voting started.  I was against the all-or nothing crapfest it turned into, and in particular, to how a bratty Matt Gaetz turned it into his own personal vendetta.

I don't really know how to be more clear on this.  There were some rules changes I support, and some I opposed both during the process and now.  I've been very consistent on that.

[Hoodat]

So is ignoring reality.  If the choice is between placating enough Republicans to hold the majority with $800M in birth control to kill babies in the womb, versus having those same Republicans join with the Dems and cause an extra $50B in spending, I'm choosing that first course 10 times out of 10.

Logical fallacy - false dilemma.

But to answer your question, I would gladly side with $50 billion in extra spending if it guaranteed that no federal tax dollars went towards killing babies in the womb.

[Bigun]

We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion here.

  @Maj. Bill Martin

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

 Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), "The Conscience of a Conservative"

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Logical fallacy - false dilemma.

But to answer your question, I would gladly side with $50 billion in extra spending if it guaranteed that no federal tax dollars went towards killing babies in the womb.

I suppose it depends on how you define "birth control", but I'll simply say that no matter how you define it, you'd end up with something worse if the bill was Democrat-authored.  And that's my point.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

 Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), "The Conscience of a Conservative"

I agree with every word of that.  But then, he got absolutely annihilated in the election, didn't he?  And we ended up with LBJ's massive "War on Poverty", which was one of the biggest disasters to ever happen to this country.

The funny thing is that Reagan used a lot of those exact same ideas in winning the election of 1980.  He won and Goldwater didn't because Reagan knew that packaging and presentation matter if you actually want to get things done.

Having the right goals doesn't much matter if you don't have a good plan for how to get there.

[Bigun]

I agree with every word of that.  But then, he got absolutely annihilated in the election, didn't he?  And we ended up with LBJ's massive "War on Poverty", which was one of the biggest disasters to ever happen to this country.

The funny thing is that Reagan used a lot of those exact same ideas in winning the election of 1980.  He won and Goldwater didn't because Reagan knew that packaging and presentation matter if you actually want to get things done.

Having the right goals doesn't much matter if you don't have a good plan for how to get there.

No! He won because there was no Vietnam war for his opponent to demigod like LBJ did Goldwater! That and the fact that his opponent was an idiot!

And BTW: I have a hard time believing your "I agree with every word of that." based on your previous posting history. To me you seem WAY more concerned with passing legislation than preserving liberty.