Bill Clinton was and is a great speaker.
I love that he's making his stand on arithmetic, though.
"...let interests gobble up..."
Like entitlements? Where is that money coming from?
The worst challenge the establishment budgets face is simple arithmetic. The kind of money Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Pensions and Social Security require simply does not exist.
Oh, by the way: "If you think it is wrong to change voting procedures..."
Great pick for today, given certain recent votes on the DNC floor. They didn't change the procedures, it's true. Under Robert's Rules the chair has every right to declare an opinion about the outcome of a vote, and refuse to recognize objections from the floor.
Robert's Rules were written, though, in an era in which an unreasonable chair would be dragged outside for tar and feathers. It's not clear how they apply to a society unready to do that.
11 comments:
I hope the way they apply is to undermine popular support for the institution that use the Rules that way.
I doubt it will apply in that way. Remember that the RNC did much the same thing.
Does the DNC use Robert's Rules? Or Barack's By-Laws?
Eric Hines
They're more like guidelines.
I'm sorry but the line from Slick Willy's speech last night that needs to be spotlighted, highlighted, replayed in super-slow motion and then excoriated in perpetuity is this:
“If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”
This will sit beside "You Didn't Build That!" as one of the many nails the DNC drove into their own coffins.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, IM(NSH)O. (No offense, Grim)
0>;~}
I'm no fan of the DNC. Never have been.
"“If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities – a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”"
To continue with the theme Grim presented in the comment above I will paraphrase my distant cousin, Captain Bubba Barbossa, by simply saying that I'm disinclined to acquiesce to that suggestion... Means no.
I like the idea of an "all in it together society" if we are, say, attacked by Imperial Japan. But I'm not sure I understand what a "shared opportunity" is. I understand that Solyndra got a great opportunity, which I had the honor of sharing... in the costs of... but if it had worked, I doubt I would have shared in the profits.
The government would have shared in the profits, via taxes; and actually, they were the ones who provided the investment (of my dollars). Hm... maybe I do understand what "shared opportunity" means, after all.
"Hm... maybe I do understand what "shared opportunity" means, after all."
Yes sir... I think you've got it by the essentials.
As far as Mr. Hines question, Does the DNC use Robert's Rules? Or Barack's By-Laws?"
As far as Robert's Rules of Order goes, wasn't it the former commenter, Ymar, who often cited entropy and the dissolution of order in society as a means to explain the destructive trends we see more and more often in our institutions?
Which leads me to suggest that maybe Robert's Rules should be amended to allow for a special rule to facilitate a caning point of order? That might make political conventions more interesting, and to a wider audience.
The ah, er, gentleman... delegate from the Occupy Any Street Territories, the gentleman delegate from the [re]occupied territories, and the gentleman delegate from the Atheists contingent wish to call for the Mayor of L.A. to be held over on a caning point of order for the delegate vote count amending the party platform taken on 05-Sep-12.
Hmmmm...
I'm not sure I understand what a "shared opportunity" is.
In Europe, they're calling it collectivizing the debt.
Eric Hines
"They're more like guidelines."
Mere suggestions at best.
I think it differs from what the RNC did- I saw video that made the ayes sound louder, so there is at least the reasonable argument that it was close and depended on who was closest to you, whether the ayes or nos had it, and if the voice vote is allowed, and the speakers opinion is the referee, so be it. If it were more important, then bylaws would call for a balloted vote. In the Dems case, I wonder if they were in a formal position to hold the vote legitimately- did they have a quorum? The arena was mostly empty. Was there proper notification in advance of the vote? Most votes for changes require some advance notice.
But of course, all that only matters if you think the rules matter, and it's clear our ruling class doesn't believe that to be the case.
Post a Comment