Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.
The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.
Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
“Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”
When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.
The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.
The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.
Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.
Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.
“Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”
Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.
No idea if Trump'll will sign the bill... as it'll potentially reduces his impact...
I'll have some crow to eat if he does sign either one of those...
Nor, it's a given that the Senate Democrats would be on board (the need for 60th vote)... dude... do you wanna rein in the Cheeto Jesus? This is one way, especially if you retake Congress.
It's just classic republican "regulation is bad because reaons" gak. This isn't exactly anything knew. Same gak, different label.
I'm wondering when they'll feth over the country again by putting in loopholes for the oil and gas industry in the clean water act. Again.
God forbid lawmakers to restore 'lawmaking' authority where it belongs, yaknow... the the entire purpose of the legislative branch... regulation should be focused on enforcing statutes passed by Congress.
We've all bitched before how Congress handed their balls to the Executive... take 'em back yo. (not sure Trump would hand 'em over though)
The REINS Act, which would mandate that any regulation with an estimated cost of $100 million or more be put to an up or down vote by Congress. What's so unreasonable about this?
The biggest one I'm anxious about, is Sen. Mike Lee's "Separation of Powers Restoration Act" to render null & void the doctrine of the Chevron-deference. This bill would replace the Chevron-deference standard with traditional judicial review of administrative actions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 04:33:48
whembly wrote: God forbid lawmakers to restore 'lawmaking' authority where it belongs, yaknow... the the entire purpose of the legislative branch... regulation should be focused on enforcing statutes passed by Congress.
The issue is that congress doesn't have the resources to handle all those regulations. Congress can set high-level policy goals, but there's a reason the executive branch has whole departments full of people making regulations to handle all the details. The actual goal here is not to fix a problem with the balance of power, it's to make regulations harder to create and support conservative ideology.
The REINS Act, which would mandate that any regulation with an estimated cost of $100 million or more be put to an up or down vote by Congress. What's so unreasonable about this?
That's not what the law says. It isn't an up or down vote, it's "no regulation unless we approve it first". And that's what's unreasonable about it. If either house of congress declines to vote at all then the regulation is struck down by default. It's a complete reversal of the current situation, where congress has to vote in favor of abolishing or altering a regulation for any change to happen. If congress fails to vote or the two houses can not agree the executive branch proceeds as they wish. You know, checks and balances, not "give all power to whatever part of the government the republican party controls".
What is likely to happen under the REINS Act is a vast increase in the power of republican obstructionism. The republican party's goal is to minimize government regulations as a general principle, and to achieve this goal all they have to do is prevent a "yes" vote from happening in at least one house of congress. If congress is stuck in partisan gridlock as it has been nothing gets done, and the republicans win by default. And because of the way gerrymandering and disproportionate representation of rural areas skews the house of representatives in favor of the republicans it's very likely that even if the democrats take the senate and the presidency the republican party will retain the ability to say "no regulations are permitted" and strip the executive branch of its power. If the republican party has 40% of the senate OR 51% of the house the executive branch might as well not exist.
It's a lot like what is happening with the state republican party in NC. We elected a democrat to replace McCrory, so the legislature immediately voted to take away a lot of the governor's power (some of which it had just recently granted to McCrory) and give it to the legislature. For example, previously the NC election boards were appointed by the governor. When McCrory won he appointed the people who did all the various questionably-ethical things like cutting early voting hours (since early voting tended to lean democrat) to bias the system in favor of republicans. Now that a democrat might make appointments that reverse the changes the NC legislature changed it to having a 50/50 split between the parties. This might seem "fair" in theory, but it has the result of creating permanent deadlock and leaving McCrory's policies in place by default. The only real difference is that the REINS Act is being proposed in the aftermath of a republican victory, while the stuff in NC is the last desperate attempt by the losers to declare themselves the permanent winners instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 05:06:14
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: God forbid lawmakers to restore 'lawmaking' authority where it belongs, yaknow... the the entire purpose of the legislative branch... regulation should be focused on enforcing statutes passed by Congress.
The issue is that congress doesn't have the resources to handle all those regulations. Congress can set high-level policy goals, but there's a reason the executive branch has whole departments full of people making regulations to handle all the details. The actual goal here is not to fix a problem with the balance of power, it's to make regulations harder to create and support conservative ideology.
That's a lot of horse puckey.
Congress is perfectly able to pass laws with specific intent. Sometimes, it should be broad so that the Executive Branch can have some leeway within the parameters of the statutes.
The REINS Act, which would mandate that any regulation with an estimated cost of $100 million or more be put to an up or down vote by Congress. What's so unreasonable about this?
That's not what the law says. It isn't an up or down vote, it's "no regulation unless we approve it first". And that's what's unreasonable about it. If either house of congress declines to vote at all then the regulation is struck down by default. It's a complete reversal of the current situation, where congress has to vote in favor of abolishing or altering a regulation for any change to happen. If congress fails to vote or the two houses can not agree the executive branch proceeds as they wish. You know, checks and balances, not "give all power to whatever part of the government the republican party controls".
What is likely to happen under the REINS Act is a vast increase in the power of republican obstructionism. The republican party's goal is to minimize government regulations as a general principle, and to achieve this goal all they have to do is prevent a "yes" vote from happening in at least one house of congress. If congress is stuck in partisan gridlock as it has been nothing gets done, and the republicans win by default. And because of the way gerrymandering and disproportionate representation of rural areas skews the house of representatives in favor of the republicans it's very likely that even if the democrats take the senate and the presidency the republican party will retain the ability to say "no regulations are permitted" and strip the executive branch of its power. If the republican party has 40% of the senate OR 51% of the house the executive branch might as well not exist.
Oo
Read the Act. It only kicks in for anything that the CBO scores costing over $100 million dollars.
Furthermore, it'll have the capability of PUTTING A CHECK ON TRUMP!
Jaysus... even *I* don't want the Cheeto Jesus to wield the same sort of executive overreach power like his predecessors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 05:09:12
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
If anything, showing the names of all the legislators who voted it down would work wonders for making sure those kinds of people don't get reelected. It'd also be the same if one of the legislators voted to reduce congressional pay. THAT would be a fast way to "drain the swamp" right there: submit a bill that lowers congressional pay or forces them to choose either their congressional pay or their private sector interests ie. lawfirms and such. Vote out anybody who votes "no" to that.
It wouldn't work. Over here we had our MPsget a 10% pay rise from a review by an independent body and they then voted to increase their pay by 1.3% on top of that 10% increase only 9 months later. Meanwhile all other public sector workers (nurses, police, firefighters, doctors, civil servants, teachers etc.) had their pay capped at a 1% increase per year. They did not get voted out.
Then the citizens of your country must have been happy with the changes. US citizens tend to be more... volatile.
Congress is perfectly able to pass laws with specific intent. Sometimes, it should be broad so that the Executive Branch can have some leeway within the parameters of the statutes.
Yes, of course congress can pass laws with specific intent. That's not the issue here, because executive branch regulations don't apply. The actual issue is cases where congress sets high-level policy and depends on the executive branch to figure out all the details of implementing that policy. There is absolutely no way that congress can handle this job. There aren't enough people with experience in the relevant fields, and they don't have anywhere near enough time.
Read the Act. It only kicks in for anything that the CBO scores costing over $100 million dollars.
AKA "anything worth arguing about".
Furthermore, it'll have the capability of PUTTING A CHECK ON TRUMP!
No it won't. Aside from the fact that republicans have shown no spine at all in falling in line behind Trump once he showed that he could offer them power the law only applies to adding regulations. Trump's explicitly stated policy goal is to remove regulations. This is not an attempt to stop Trump, it's a NC-style attempt to ensure that even if the republican party loses the elections in 2018 their policies continue to win by default because it's impossible to overturn them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 05:40:42
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Congress is perfectly able to pass laws with specific intent. Sometimes, it should be broad so that the Executive Branch can have some leeway within the parameters of the statutes.
Yes, of course congress can pass laws with specific intent. That's not the issue here, because executive branch regulations don't apply. The actual issue is cases where congress sets high-level policy and depends on the executive branch to figure out all the details of implementing that policy. There is absolutely no way that congress can handle this job. There aren't enough people with experience in the relevant fields, and they don't have anywhere near enough time.
Read the Act. It only kicks in for anything that the CBO scores costing over $100 million dollars.
AKA "anything worth arguing about".
Furthermore, it'll have the capability of PUTTING A CHECK ON TRUMP!
No it won't. Aside from the fact that republicans have shown no spine at all in falling in line behind Trump once he showed that he could offer them power the law only applies to adding regulations. Trump's explicitly stated policy goal is to remove regulations. This is not an attempt to stop Trump, it's a NC-style attempt to ensure that even if the republican party loses the elections in 2018 their policies continue to win by default because it's impossible to overturn them.
Right... it's so beyond the pale that if a proposed regulation is going to cost the public over $100 million dollars, that Congress shouldn't have a say.
I mean, the alternative is to shut down the government since they hold the purse... amirite? Because passing legislation when the other party hold the Whitehouse worked out so well...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 05:46:27
whembly wrote: Right... it's so beyond the pale that if a proposed regulation is going to cost the public over $100 million dollars, that Congress shouldn't have a say.
They can have a say. Congress is already free to pass laws that create new regulations or overturn/modify existing regulations, we don't need a new law to do that. The issue with the proposed law is not that congress gets a say, it's that congress gets the final say and the executive branch is completely powerless to do anything but rubber stamp whatever congress decides. And if congress can't agree on what its position is then the answer defaults to "no" instead of "the executive branch acts without interference".
Here's a quote from your article on the subject:
And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
I mean, the alternative is to shut down the government since they hold the purse... amirite?
Apparently, if you're the republican party. "Give us what we want or we'll shut down the government" seems to be the standard republican party murder-suicide threat.
Because passing legislation when the other party hold the Whitehouse worked out so well...
I believe there's a name for that: checks and balances. You know, it does mean more than just "republicans in congress get the final say on everything the federal government does".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/05 05:59:43
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Right... it's so beyond the pale that if a proposed regulation is going to cost the public over $100 million dollars, that Congress shouldn't have a say.
They can have a say. Congress is already free to pass laws that create new regulations or overturn/modify existing regulations, we don't need a new law to do that. The issue with the proposed law is not that congress gets a say, it's that congress gets the final say and the executive branch is completely powerless to do anything but rubber stamp whatever congress decides. And if congress can't agree on what its position is then the answer defaults to "no" instead of "the executive branch acts without interference"..
So you don't believe the Executive branch has ever pushed, bend or even exceeded Congressional intent?
Okay. Then when the GOP loses one or both houses in Congress... and stalemates Trumps... I don't want to hear from you that Trump would use his 'phone & pen' ala, Obama.
I mean, the alternative is to shut down the government since they hold the purse... amirite?
Apparently, if you're the republican party. "Give us what we want or we'll shut down the government" seems to be the standard republican party murder-suicide threat..
Because Republicans are unreasonable rascals. Got it.
Because passing legislation when the other party hold the Whitehouse worked out so well...
I believe there's a name for that: checks and balances. You know, it does mean more than just "republicans in congress get the final say on everything the federal government does".
Okay... if that's your view, it'll be interesting to how you'll react in the next couple of years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 06:02:59
whembly wrote: So you don't believe the Executive branch has ever pushed, bend or even exceeded Congressional intent?
Of course they have, but what's your point? If the executive branch exceeds the intent of congress then congress, under current laws, can pass a law saying "don't do that". The REINS Act is not necessary for this.
Okay. Then when the GOP loses one or both houses in Congress... and stalemates Trumps... I don't want to hear from you that Trump would use his 'phone & pen' ala, Obama.
Are you aware that there is a difference between government regulations (as the REINS Act applies to) and executive orders? The "phone and pen" criticism of executive orders has nothing to do with regulatory agencies.
Because Republicans are unreasonable rascals. Got it.
Exactly. Their behavior in the debt ceiling hostage crisis they created should have already made this clear.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
Would it have put in more dems voting? Trump didn't won because he got lots of votes(his result was at best average for republican candinate) but because dem voters stayed home.
What wikileak could have released about Trump that would make more dem voters go and vote?
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
Would it have put in more dems voting? Trump didn't won because he got lots of votes(his result was at best average for republican candinate) but because dem voters stayed home.
What wikileak could have released about Trump that would make more dem voters go and vote?
The issue is that Dems don't fething vote unless their candidate is absolutely perfect. I doubt it would have raised turnout much.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/05 16:30:09
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
What do you guys think about this? Is Zuckerberg a contender? Or is this just wishful thinking on the part of his cult of personality?
I hope not. He appears to be one of those "my morals for everyone" guys. Fine for optional social media, not fine for government.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
"Vote for me of I'll have the Trojan horse I have been installing in all MS products for the last 10 years activate and shut off all access to internet porn...for ever!"
Anyway, enough of the negatives, let's focus on the positives
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and because of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 16:58:55
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
If Trump doesn't play ball, we'll dust off the old war plans, the two pronged attack:
Stage 1: 10,000 redcoats invade from Canada and cut off the rebels at Boston.
Stage 2.: The Royal Navy blockades the Chesapeake, and the loss of trade will force the influential New England Merchants to pressure Congress into asking for a peace treaty.
We can't lose.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to take business away from the UK, it has been reported.
Wilbur Ross, the incoming US Commerce Secretary, said Britain was facing a "period of confusion" following the vote to leave the EU and that it was "inevitable" there would be "relocations", according to The Times.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
If Trump doesn't play ball, we'll dust off the old war plans, the two pronged attack:
Stage 1: 10,000 redcoats invade from Canada and cut off the rebels at Boston.
Stage 2.: The Royal Navy blockades the Chesapeake, and the loss of trade will force the influential New England Merchants to pressure Congress into asking for a peace treaty.
We can't lose.
You you can goad him into things by making fun of him on twitter.
Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to take business away from the UK, it has been reported.
Wilbur Ross, the incoming US Commerce Secretary, said Britain was facing a "period of confusion" following the vote to leave the EU and that it was "inevitable" there would be "relocations", according to The Times.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
According to a newspaper article I read, Trump's election is good news for Britain, as Trump's tax cuts will boost the American economy, and becuase of the weak pound, our exports will get a timely boost, and thus help our balance of payments.
Good bless you President Trump
PS
keep buying forgeworld, my American friends.
Plus Cheeto Jesus vowed that Britain won't go in the back of the queue, as Obama stated...
Now, the trick, is to hold him to that. I wish you luck!
If Trump doesn't play ball, we'll dust off the old war plans, the two pronged attack:
Stage 1: 10,000 redcoats invade from Canada and cut off the rebels at Boston.
Stage 2.: The Royal Navy blockades the Chesapeake, and the loss of trade will force the influential New England Merchants to pressure Congress into asking for a peace treaty.
We can't lose.
You you can goad him into things by making fun of him on twitter.
On a serious note, I do worry what Trump's reactions will be if he gets into an argument on twitter or feels insulted. It would be bad if he started using his status for petty acts of punishment against those he feels have insulted him.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
Would it have put in more dems voting? Trump didn't won because he got lots of votes(his result was at best average for republican candinate) but because dem voters stayed home.
What wikileak could have released about Trump that would make more dem voters go and vote?
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
I assume they are talking about the "Fourteen words"
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
It's a white supremacist thing. And it's often seen paired with 88, which is a neo-nazi thing ("H" is the eigth letter in the alphabet, 88=HH=Heil Hitler). Wihtout context, however, it's hard to figure our what she is talking about. Then again it is Ann Coulter.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
kronk wrote: What am I reading, there reds8n? She wrote "14!" and then there was a lot of White Power style posts. Were those her's or replies from followers?
There are lots of dog-whistle numbers. 88, 311 and so on. 14 is one of those, a code that people in the white supremacist movement would recognize that means nothing much to normal people.
3000
4000 
