mspart

Quite the research you have done. Isn't it amazing that PSU did so well as soon as Cael took over? It didn't take long to become dominant. Very interesting. mspart

Many years ago, I remember that match, I was there at Oregon State in Corvallis OR. I remember they announced that Burley was a true freshman and I thought it was pretty cool that he won. I also remember the Oregon St. Hwt Howard Harris who pinned his way through the tourney. I was about a junior in HS and my Dad took me with his buddy and his buddy's son. mspart

You say that like it is a bad thing!! mspart

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/motion-vacate-key-sticking-point-gop-speaker-battle/story?id=96241364 This article explains how the vote of no confidence is initiated, by either R or D. mspart

Interesting. 1. I have read that both Ds and Rs can ignite a vote of no confidence. So I don't think you are correct there. 2. This may come to nothing, but you did not answer but that is not why you are against it. Are you philosophically against investigating FBI, or just think there is nothing there? 3. Agreed!! 4. There have not been many budgets passed over the several decades you refer to. So no real issue there that I see. They should have as many spending bills as there are departments in the administration, then maybe one for the Judiciary and Legislative branches. No more sneaking in things via amendment that have nothing to do with that US Dept. 5. Yes it is in Congress' lap and that's why it is in the concessions. Well the "not war on drugs" certainly isn't working as more people than ever are dying due to drug overdose. 6. Will not argue this point. Like I said, I really am on the fence. Depends where the funds go to. 7. This is a tired old argument that will get nowhere. But you are not, apparently, for a budget that is more real with income and spending. Or you would have said so rather than bring up debt from different admins. I think it is good policy to only spend what comes in. Call me crazy but you and I need to do it, our States need to do it, our National govt should do it too. Thanks for your thoughts, mspart

Jason, That's pretty funny. Thanks for adding that to the mix here. mspart

It would take time away from the "important" business of the House and make the R's look like they can't control anything. One D could say I want a vote, and all Ds will vote against the Speaker, they only need 5 R's do the same and then the speaker is no more. Good for the Ds if they don't want to play those games. mspart

As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda. A “Church” style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people. Term limits will be put up for a vote. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’” COVID mandates will be ended as will all funding for them, including so-called “emergency funding.” Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same. 1. For for this one, as I understand it, it is not limited to the party in power, but to every House member. I don't think this is viable hence my comment on D's using this at least once a week. If it is limited to the Rs for this Congress, I still don't like it as it will be very disruptive. 2. I think this is a great idea as there is at least half the country that believes the FBI has been weaponized against conservatives and their ideology. 3. This may happen but is moot as discussed. 4. Single subject bills is good. A Defense bill should not be including stuff for DHS, National Parks, Aunt Trudy's favorite cause etc. Single subject like defense, or HHS, or what have you. 72 hours to read them is quite reasonable and requires a minimum of planning and administration. The omnibus bill is something no one could read in 72 hours and it had all kinds of subjects. My understanding is that if an amendment comes up that is off topic, it is summarily rejected as out of order. This is all good. 5. The border is porous, the admin is not following the law and allowing millions to enter and with them millions in drugs coming across the border. Something needs to happen to close the border. 6. Again, I'm not sure about this one. I am not a Covid hawk and want all kinds of money for it. But there are some folks still hurting from the economic paralysis that occurred due to it. I am not a covid denier, I have it. It wasn't fun. But there was entirely too much money piled into this. Something needs to be looked at rationally here but I don't think that comes with a stop all funding idea. 7. Continuing to spend more and borrow more really needs to stop. There is trillions of dollars of debt and with interest rates rising, more and more of the budget will be to service that debt. That is a zero sum game. We should not be spending more than we bring in and each year we bring in a record amount of cash to the Treasury. These are my reasons for generally supporting these "concessions". Please provide a point by point reasoning why these concessions are not good. mspart

What are the odds that the Ds use this at least once a week? So in general Mike, you are not supportive of any of these concessions? mspart

This is another good one. mspart

I like this one. mspart

It cost this: As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda. A “Church” style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people. Term limits will be put up for a vote. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’” COVID mandates will be ended as will all funding for them, including so-called “emergency funding.” Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same. I would have to say item 1 is not good, Item 3 is a no go, SCOTUS won't allow it. Has to be a Constitutional Amendment, not some law. Been through this already. Items 2, 4, and 5 are good. Item 6, I'm on the fence about that. Still lots of folks have been hurt by that downturn. Item 7 won't happen. There's the facts and my opinion about them. mspart

Actual video, funnier than the photos. Rogers got taken out quick. mspart

Well, now everyone can take a deep breath and revel in the fact that we have a speaker of the House and that all reps are now sworn in or will be shortly. Just takes a huge load off of my mind. mspart

I think that is probably true. Tough to see the grins and chuckles on the other side of the keyboard while typing. mspart

I don't care if you post on this thread or not. But you seem very invested because you started it and post the most on this. I asked you why you are concerned and you still have not answered that question. I see you are tired of arguing and not answering direct questions. That can wear on a guy I understand. You ask why I don't care, but I have answered that numerous times in this thread. All you have to do is read, and that direct answer is there in numerous posts. I have been very direct and clear. If you choose not to read them and understand them, that is not on me. I sense you are just argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Whenever anyone, including me, asks you a direct question, nothing but deflection or obfuscation is provided. That can wear on a guy to have to do that all the time, whereas just answering the question would end it. Seems like a simple approach you might try. I enjoy your posts on the international board, full of great insight and actual facts and data. Very much unlike your political posts which are just opinion with no actual facts behind them. Opinion is ok. Everyone has one. But your attempts to prove your point by pointing to other opinions void of any actual data is not proving your point. That is ok, everyone has their deal going and I'm passionate about what I believe too. But I attempt to answer questions directly and show facts and data to bolster my point of view. But if you want to take a break, that's good. Probably be better all around. mspart

I don't. If you read my first post on this, you will see that. I was just making a funny. If you are referring to the comment about return, I was just stating that 0.0001% would not be a good rate of return and no one would think so. Do you? mspart

Again, why does this bother you? mspart

So now you are looking to Stonekettle to argue for you? He first says he is unconcerned then calls them names for not getting this done. He can't even figure out what he wants and you are looking to him to help argue this for you? Who is this guy anyway? Never heard of him. Why do I care what he says? I don't. I admit it would be nice for them to get this settled, but apparently McCarthy, the heir apparent, isn't so apparent. As long as nothing gets done, no further damage is happening. mspart

OK, so really you are not concerned. What earth shaking legislation is pending that they need to get to right away? None. So there is nothing to be concerned about here. Let them do what politicos do and make fools of themselves. This seems like something you would applaud. mspart

What about this 2020 return do you not understand? mspart

Please use those 1040 returns and show me how, as Forbes says, he paid no taxes in 2020. You won't find the answer in the Forbes article. In fact in the first paragragh, a link to the HOuse ways and means committee does not work. This is found in the first of the KEY FACTS. It's not a fact if it can't be seen. There are no facts or data in the Forbes article. Only proclamations. I've seen the 1040 forms, as you have now. I trust the forms signed under penalty of prosecution rather than soft blather. mspart

Mike, I assume you are not a fan of the Rs. So why does this concern you so much? It's not like the Ds will suddenly take power here. mspart

I brought the screenshots to you and your first reaction was - look how much his refunds were. Now you are still arguing the point, but not answering why you still believe people that tell you he paid $750 when it is demonstrable that is not what he paid. You have been lied to and duped. I'm sorry but I'm looking at the facts and data, that's all. It shows he paid hundreds of thousands in taxes each of those years. mspart

Final 1040 form, look it up. mspart