FREEPTURDS name me ONE meaningful piece of legislation you've passed in 29 years

[DainBramaged]

prior to Obama being elected President, just ONE, and I don't mean tax cuts for the 1%, that was bullshit and simply robbing the treasury. And I don't mean No Child Left Behind, because too many childrens WERE left behind.

I've got one piece OUR side did, Title 9, Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act and I bet most of your kids benefited from it;

Prohibition against discrimination; No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance

I'll be waiting.......

[CanonRay]

1. They got rid of Glass-Steagall, which was meaningful.

A disaster that helped collapse the economy, but it was meaningful. :sarcasm:

[Laelth]

7. We can't blame that one on them.

Not entirely, at least. Clinton signed it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[SIMPLYB1980]

17. Clinton signed it because it had a veto proof majority.

The Democrats that sided with the republicans in congress were the reason for the repeal.

[Laelth]

18. That's interesting. I didn't know that.

I do recall that a number of corporatist Democrats also supported the bill, but I did not know that it passed with a veto-proof majority.

Of course, Clinton could have still vetoed it ... if he wanted to.

:dem:

-Laelth

[SIMPLYB1980]

20. It had a 90 vote majority.

His veto would have been overruled and then the right would have had an even bigger victory. They also may have been able to do more damage to the New Deal by amending the bill even further after the veto to deregulate more than they already had.

[Political Heretic]

26. Both of your statements are wishful thinking.

Wishful, in the sense of wishing to find some excuses to justify something that was wrong.

The whole notion that an overridden veto is a big victory for the other side is a myth. If you think you're veto will stick and then it is overridden, that's a defeat and embarrassing. But if you know from the get-go that you don't have the votes to make it stick, then its an act of principle, and can be seen as tough and principled with the very voters that are most needed, independents (who strongly, strongly, value independent and non-capitulating streaks in their candidates) and working class democrats.

Your second excuse is even more bogus. If the bill had a 90 vote majority then there was no "evil" amendment that they didn't already have more than enough votes to pass. The idea that somehow if it was sent back to them that would open the door for a bunch of other stuff is nonsense.

[Political Heretic]

25. That's no excuse.

He should have and could have vetoed it, if he had any serious interest in opposing the legislation.

Saying that he signed it because it was veto proof is your guess about motives and contradicts the fact that key administration persons from his administration team supported the idea and wanted to see it happen.

Given the absolute seriousness of the implications of the act, then would have been a time to veto anyway, and campaign with the public against the bill, and draw highly public attention to every senator and representative selling out american to vote for corporate theivery.

The fact that this didn't happen is yet another reason why the american public is so slow to outrage.... our leaders do little to ever expose corporate sellouts or what they are doing to the people.

[SIMPLYB1980]

27. That's why a purist will never be President.

Sometimes you have to compromise you're ideals in order to govern. Would it have been a better Idea to veto it and then have another bill passed with more deregulations added that the President couldn't veto? It's my understanding that once a veto is overridden a bill can not be vetoed again. I guess that would change if amendments are added, but I'm not sure about that.

[Political Heretic]

30. Sometimes you have to compromise - that's exactly right. Sometimes.

What is it called when you compromise on the wrong things? You believe that can happen sometimes, right? Or are you suggesting that any compromise, no matter what it is, is a good one.

The charge of "purist" has become little more than a cheap way to offhandedly dismiss someone else. Little more. There are very few people out there who don't understand the process of working with other human beings, whether it be in politics or any other walk of life. There are some, but they are few.

Most of us know that claiming someone is a "purist" is just a cowards way of avoiding a real examination of how well our representatives are doing at actually representing we the people.

As far as amendments go, Congress can't add amendments to a veto-override. In a post below I pointed out that if they had a 90-vote majority anyway, there wouldn't be anything to add, however that doesn't even matter, because you can't add amendments to something the President won't have a change to sign or veto.

The point of the veto is not always its success. A veto override can be a slap to an administration sometimes but that entirely depends on how they frame it.

Sometimes its to gain the political and media attention to draw focus on a congress that is screwing the working class. The fight starts out by taking away the "story" but saying, "I know we're going to lose this, but the American people need to know why this is wrong, and that I won't abandon them to economic royalists just to save political face." Combine that then with an aggressive public relations campaign to attack capitulating corporate enablers in congress for what they really are, and bam - up 5 points in the polls.

So, it's not about "purism" - its simply smarter politics. It has the benefit of not only being a more just choice (to fight against such an obviously anti-people act) but it also could have been done in a way that solidified the President as a maverick (taking on even congressional democrats in his own party), as a populist (which contrary to corporate myth, is how you win the independent vote)

[DainBramaged]

23. But it wasn't beneficial to anyone except the one percenters

I should have included BENEFICIAL.

[rfranklin]

2. Patriot Act! Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Them terra-ists is hiding right under your bed!

[Kansas Wyatt]

3. Now that the Democrats are in charge....

They aren't so proud of that one anymore.

[YOY]

11. It's gotta be good for 'Murka...it's got "Patriot" right in the title.

n.t.

[asdjrocky]

4. Look, my bil is a turd.

I have friends that are turds, it's true. So when my bil looks at me and cries, "Why is he calling me a turd?" I feel his pain.

I'm ofended by the term turd.

[HopeHoops]

5. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) - STAR WARS!

Biggest White Collar employment project in HISTORY!

I worked as a contractor (on the Hubble, actually) at Goddard and interacted with a lot of the Lockheed guys at the time. They were THRILLED when Reagan announced SDI because, and they were rather giddy about it, it meant they could hire a shitload of people to do pretty much nothing, bill them out at outrageous rates, and the only "deliverable" would be a handful of reports that nobody would read. There was no product!

SDI made a serious dent in the unemployment rate (for upper-middle class people), and actually did increase the state and federal tax revenue - at a MASSIVE net loss to the federal government, but that was included in the deficit and "deficits don't matter", according to Reagan.

But all of that aside, the real purpose was to generate fear of "The Evil Empire". I'm so glad the GOP is over the use of fear as a means to control the hoards of morons - D'OH!

[wolfgangmo]

6. If there is any justice.

Reagan is slow roasting on a spit for eternity while Satan tenderizes his ass for the BBQ sauce with a garden weasel.

[HopeHoops]

8. "A little higher, Nancy-pookie. Oh yeah, that's right."

"We're just not getting THROUGH to this guy!"

[Cyrano]

9. One of the biggest threats to humanity is overpopulation

So I guess the Republicans can claim that by fighting against universal health care, they are ensuring that more people will die, thus holding down the population.

Assuming this theory is true, I would have no problem with it, as long as the victims of their policies were themselves and those who buy into their horse shit.

Short of that, Republicans are people who consistently occupy "the dark side."

[Deep13]

10. Well, there's the Iraq war.

I'm afraid many Ds were complicit in that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. The 1986 FOPA afforded US citizens more rights.

Depending on your stance this act might be good or bad... but no can deny it was certainly meaningful. Clarified prohbited persons, banned machineguns, provided "safe passage", prohibited registries, and provided for FFL regulatory reform. All of these actions can be seen as sensibly protecting the rights of the people while upholding the control aspects of the 1968 GCA.

Along the same topic... that rediculous 1994 AWB expired in 2004. Sure, letting it expire didn't require legislation, but it was a good legislative move.

[DainBramaged]

14. Passing legislation that makes it easier to kill people isn't meaningful

give us a break. Did it help the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick? NO it made rich white guys happy they could display their steel penises in public and keep the weapons they claimed were for deer hunting (but are really for people hunting).

If you consider that meaningful, you don't understand the concept of HELPING people and meaningful.

On edit, I KNEW one of you gun bunnies would claim firearms laws were meaningful. But you guys trip yourselves up every single time.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Have you ever READ the '86 FOPA?

LOL, you really are brain damaged.

[DainBramaged]

22. Was the FOPA as important as raising the minimum wage?

I'm not brain damaged, you folks are, and that you equate gun rights with EVERYTHING that is law need to have your heads examined. Your last comment about the assault weapons ban sealed it. You don't give a shit about social justice, all you care about is your 'right' to keep and bear arms, fuck everybody else.

How pathetic.

PS why do firearms owners need protection? How gross.

It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights. However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."<3>

The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).

You prove that banning machine guns is as beneficial to anyone OTHER than gun owners/sellers who jacked up the prices and I'll eat my keyboard. You guys don't give a shit about humanity.

Bullshit.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. It allowed americans more freedoms.

So, you make some copypasta straight out of wikipedia and that's your argument? Hahahaha! How pathetic.

The simple fact was that, at minimum, it allowed Americans the freedom to travel with firearms without undue restriction and limited the ATF regulatory power - stemming widespread reports of harassment. It protected civil liberties and millions of american gun owners have been helped by the FOPA. It also clarified the list of people ineligible/unfit to own firearms.

I never claimed it was better than other bills designed to help the poor, feed the hungry, heal the sick... but that was not the point. The OP asked for one piece GOP legislation that made a difference and, despite your aversion to 2A rights, the FOPA certainly gives more rights to the PEOPLE. That makes it meaningful beneficial legislation.

The machine gun ban was not beneficial IMO and I was not trying to prove that was. The FOPA also did that as well so I mentioned it. However, consider that without the MG ban MOST people that own AR-15's (the most popular rifle in america) would have M16s as the registration process to make the AR15 an M16 would only add about 20% to the base rifle price. My stance on the MG ban? It's bullshit.

PS why do firearms owners need protection? How gross.
Because there those whose desires conflict with my well being... and when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[DainBramaged]

28. Well I figured out what side of the fence you stand on

Typical gunbunny logic, "when seconds count". If all you idiots weren't carrying guns and guns were hard to get, you wouldn't have to worry. But then you guys would probably carry machetes since your 'right' to bear weapons give you the right to intimidate everyone else.


You should be espousing your crap on another forum where like-minded people like yourself gather to strut their stuff and threaten our President.

Thanks for giving us insight into who you really are...... an remember only stealth aircraft can fly below the radar.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. "Your 'right' to bear weapons give you the right to intimidate everyone else"

No it does not and no one has claimed it does besides you.
Tell me, what color is the sky in that world of yours? :freak:

Yes, if guns were nonexistant and difficult to make, we wouldn't have to worry.
But they do exist and you can't uninvent something. Too bad, so sad... go write your congressman. :P

PS: LOL @ the presumption that those who support RKBA are freepers. :spray:

[-..__...]

31. Ahhh... but there's one more!

You left out the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act">"Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".

Easily one of the more sane and necessary legislative acts the Repub controlled Congress passed in the previous couple of terms.

[kestrel91316]

13. They are VERY proud of the USA PATRIOT Act.

[DainBramaged]

15. And what did it do for America other than start the largest expansion of the Federal government

since WWII? We still aren't getting 95% of the container shipped in examined. Screening for liquids on handicapped grandmothers going on airplanes isn't meaningful.

[michreject]

19. To be allowed to buy guns online from another state

That one has cost me a lot of money. I wasn't at the mercy of my local gun shop and his high prices.

That's the only good law they ever passed.

[harun]

21. Their goal isn't meaningful legislation. They want a gov't that DOES NOT

serve the people. By definition they fight ANY meaningful legislation.

They want gov't to only serve the richest of the rich, and to keep everyone else in line, quietly paying tons of money in income tax, only for wars.