Though I am definitely against censorship, I would have to see the text of the bill before making an opinion on it. Can anyone here provide a link?

Supposedly, Pelosi's bill will be modeled on HR 4682.

I want nothing to do with any bill any liberal DemocRAT introduces. I realize I said I was gonna wait until the next congress convened before passing judgement, but I don't think there's any need to expect anything but partisanship from Piglosi and Reid-tard. They're crooks and liars, and winning the majority isn't gonna magically make 'em honest...

Georgia,

If you read the text of the bill, it will put you way up over Nancy Pelosi, who probably isn't even aware that she's set to force it through...it is a fairly common thing among senior liberal/left politicians to have practically zero grasp of what is going on around them...the staff is reliably liberal/left and thus all sorts of things get shoved into proposals which the ostensible authors know nothing about, but will defend vigorously all the same because the liberal/left staff will advise them they need to.

If, Senator Johnson doesn't come back, and even though I would love for nothing more than to retain the Senate, I almost feel as though the Dems should own it. I know...I know slap my face for saying it, but they did win it.

Now, if the shoe were on the other foot, does anyone think that the Dems would play this way?
I think not and they would most like say that it was divine intervention, therefore, let's wait and see what happens with Senator Johnson before we get to fired up. One never knows, we could retain the Senate afterall and Pelosi and Reed may have to eat a few crow feathers.

What are some of your thoughts here?

And here's the real problem - from Leo's link:

a certification that the lobbying firm or registrant has not provided, requested, or directed a gift, including travel, to a Member or employee of Congress in violation of clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives

What, precisely, does this make illegal, or make legal? I tried looking at it in full context, and it still made no sense...I am not the smartest man in the world, but I'm not the dimmest bulb, either...in writing our book, Matt and I discovered that the laws we have are already quite tortuous and tailor-made for the powers that be...and anyone who thinks that the Democrats will pass a law which will in any way, shape or form hamper Democrats and their special interests, then you've got rocks in your head.

The only reform that is necessary is to elminate the Byzantine reforms we've passed over the last 40 years...chuck it all, and let the people see by action whether or not a Congresscritter is representing the people properly...and, of course, keep a large staff of FBI agents on hand to continually probe for the garden-variety political corruption there always will be in human government.

Mark, I believe that the clause refers to the "reporting" that needs to be done; the bill purportedly expands the pool of who must report.

Having unweildly demands on small, grass roots movements with little administration capability will serve to stifle freedom of speech at its most basic level.

Though I am definitely against censorship, I would have to see the text of the bill before making an opinion on it.

Frawg, I'm no expert at congressional bills, but most of them tend to be llllooooonnnnnggg and verbose, and as Mark points out, impossibly difficult to understand. This last point, I've come to believe, is exactly how the left wants it, so that the line between the permissible and forbidden is difficult to pin down. This way, the law can be interpreted in different ways depending on the political affiliation of the (alleged) violator.

Remember how Clarence Thomas's alleged bad jokes about a certain type of hair was considered to be sexual harassment (although Anita Hill did not actually use that term, if I recall correctly), while Bill Clinton's alleged indecent exposure and request to "kiss it" were not sexual harassment? Anyone with a sense of proportionality would consider indecent exposure to be worse behavior than crude jokes, but the left gave the impression that to them, crude speech by a righty is worse behavior than indecent exposure by a lefty.

I would not be surprised one bit if the left decides (if they already yet haven't) to politicize the definition of "dissent". While they jealously guard their own right to dissent from and criticize George Bush, and say "don't question my patriotism", they aren't always so respectful of those who dissent from their viewpoints.

Assuming that HR 4682 is the model, it does seem like extending the reporting requirements as stipulated there would have a stifling effect on small, grass-roots movements. Small, grass-roots movements are hardly the problem, it seems to me. In fact, that's what democracy is all about, isn't it? The problem is the growingly tight relationship between large groups (be they unions, business consortiums, or whatever) and our congresscritters. And in that regard it seems like there's a lot of good stuff in HR 4682. But that assumes it is administered fairly and equally. And that brings me to my question... how does what is presumably proposed affect only conservative groups? That seems to be assumed in the Psychmeister piece, and yet the author offers no explanation. What am I missing? Or does it boil down to what keefer/Toadie said: you simply can't trust a Democrat (and I'm assuming here we're including McCain under that general heading)?

Also, you do realize that what Mark suggests (chuck all regulations between legislators, lobbyists, and large special interest groups, both foreign and domestic) would also have the effect of stifling small, grass-roots organizations. You do realize that, right? I mean heck, what good would it do to make the $100K in William Jefferson's freezer totally legal? Besides Mark, if what you suggest comes to pass, sales of your book would totally tank. Lol!

In the end, it seems to me that the large majority of Americans desire to see it harder for special interests to come between them and their congresscritters. I know I do. The hard part is crafting laws that are both equitable and effective in both spirit and practice. The problem I have with the GOP is, in all the time they were in power they didn't even try. They claimed (in the 1994 Contract With America) that they were going to. But instead they gamed the system even more than the Dems did before them. Apparently it's true: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So until our congresscritters adopt a sufficient level of personal moral fortitude (which is unlikely to ever happen in this earthly realm), I'm perfectly fine with having some houses of government in control of one party, and others in control of the other. It's not a perfect solution, but to paraphrase Churchill, it's the least bad of all the others.

LMAO at all the posts in this thread!

Keep on spinning, Republican'ts!!!!

Yah we're spinning all right, trying to keep track of the democrat position on anything is a full-time job. Which direction will the Windsock Party© take today?

If there is any spinning going on, its the dem politicians spinning their wayward antics onto their gullible base who will seemingly accept anything. Culture of corruption is a republican thing...aint that right, Mr. Murtha?

> Yah we're spinning all right ...

Wow 5 words of truth from a Republican't!!!! Congrats!

> trying to keep track of the democrat position on anything is a full-time job. Which direction will the Windsock Party© take today?

The biggest flip-flopper around, is President George "D Dubya I" Bush.

> If there is any spinning going on, its the dem politicians spinning their wayward antics onto their gullible base who will seemingly accept anything. Culture of corruption is a republican thing...aint that right, Mr. Murtha?

Red-herring.

Which direction will the Windsock Party© take today?- Lose the Bongos

LoL!
:)

In the end, it seems to me that the large majority of Americans desire to see it harder for special interests to come between them and their congresscritters.

I think most of us do, nurocir, but special-interest money is what drives elections, and no bill is gonna change that.

LMAO at all the posts in this thread!

Sure beats what you contribute to this thread, Stanielle. Why don't you just stick to reading them? That way, you can fondle your Barbie dolls with one hand, while scrolling through with the other. It's better that way, Stanielle--you avoid making an arse of yourself. Well, too late for that, but damage control is still on the table...

Please continue to whine and bear false witness against your neighbor.

BTW (speaking of one of the subjects of the thread): My compliments to Matt and Mark for allowing opposing opinion on Matt's blog, it's the American WAY.

How profound, Stanielle--you're a regular geniousette, aren't you?

(spam alert)
Obama-sama "flame baits" -
> How profound, Stanielle--you're a regular geniousette, aren't you?