Brad or Rip explain to me..........
from Hutch #10968  
9/24/2009 2:31:58 PM

Rated:

 Now...there is no doubt this is a fact........... The Republicans introduced legislation that would have made it imperative that bills would have to be written in actual final form and posted for everyone to read publicly (even on the internet) 72 hours before they were submitted to the Senate body for vote so that everyone, including the public, would know what they were voting on..... It was an effort to stop that "middle of the night" vote on bills like the Stimulus package that was passed in the middle of the night before ANYONE even read it in it's final form. The point being that it should be illegal to vote a bill in and then change it LATER...... right? So, can you explain to me why the Socialists (your party) voted that proposition down?.......(12-11 committee vote) Surely not an attempt to hide anything from anyone is it?? There is no way you can justify or lie your way out of this one........ PLAIN AND SIMPLE FACT......... they can continue to change and hide agendas just like they have done and will most certainly continue to do. Bet that makes you very proud, right? ohhhh I forgot, it is Bush's fault.... Now the fun will start as the little socialist tries to protect his Messiah and the swarm of vermin around him. Hutch

Rate this message:

1 Star

2 Star

3 Star

4 Star

5 Star

   thats how the republicans did their business until they were no longer in the majority from Brad  9/24/2009 2:37:56 PM
 NOW--the disingenuous bastages want to change the rules???

sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

If it was such a good idea then why didn't they propose it when THEY owned both houses??

DUUH~!

right back atcha!

:)

   Brad, you got time to post on this subject.. How about my two posts below? from Kicknbass  9/24/2009 2:48:11 PM
 You condone a sex pervert teaching childen? How about posting on the two post below... be a man... post what you think. or you can't post what you really think? which is it.

   Funny thing Brad from Hutch #10968  9/24/2009 3:09:43 PM
 Your socialist buddies in Washington said it was a matter of people understanding things better in "conceptual language" and would delay things too much to put in the actual bill language. In others words, they were saying that their followers were not intelligent enough to understand them "big old words" And you know....... they are probably right. But you say it is a matter of getting even tho it involves TRILLIONS of dollars........ right? Just so you can get even???? ........that is some wonderful logic isn't it.......... truly pitiful. Hutch

   it is not a matter of getting even from Brad  9/24/2009 3:34:45 PM
 it sounds more like a matter of maintaining the republican status quo..

sour grapes??

:(

I don't see a problem with "conceptual language" as opposed to legalese. Not everyone knows how to read a bill.

   This Bill should from DaveT  9/24/2009 4:11:48 PM
  This Bill should be passed, no matter which party is in charge.

   Hutch from Rip #10422  9/24/2009 5:21:39 PM
 You should know, as I have posted before, I never try to educate a hog. You just wind up all muddy like the hog, and Oklahoma has some muddy hogs. Your above post demonstrates I'm correct.

   Why didn't they Hutch? It's a straightforward question. from MrDo  9/24/2009 5:39:41 PM
 

Was it not in the Republicans best interests?

Let's take a trip down memory lane Hutch. You being a probable pachyderm should not have any problem remembering.

If you want to talk secrecy, let's look back a how the Bush Energy policy was molded. Secret meetings, with not one Democrat invited, but chock full of energy exec's from companies like.....Enron.

Result:

1). Highest oil and energy prices ever.

2). Energy scams in California.

3). Enron scandal and bankruptcy.

4). Record oil profits.

5). War for oil...I mean WMD. (scuse me for the freudian slip)

Appears to have worked out well for somebody huh?

If there was nothing wrong with it then, you absolutely have no ground to stand on now.

Gander or goose?

Bwa

   Why did the socialist vote it down??? from Hutch #10968  9/24/2009 6:54:10 PM
 Nothing to do with Bush, nothing to do with oil prices, nothing to do with the few short years in the history of our country that the Republicans had control of the house and senate.......... Why is it necessary under a president WHO RAN ON THE CONCEPT of the government being open and above board........ WHY DID THEY VOTE IT DOWN??? It is the first time EITHER party brought it up. Without all the other BS......Just answer the question....... ??? When did the Democrats ever present the same legislation and when did the Republicans ever vote against it??? Why did they vote it down? Wouldn't that have been a nice "change" in the words of your Messiah Obama??? Don't answer a question with a question........ We all know why tho don't we really? Hutch

   your problem hutch from MikeF  9/25/2009 6:59:02 AM
 Is you don't understand. obama knows we're not smart enough to run our own lives and this is for our own good.

As for Do, just like brad he doesn't have a problem with the activities or results he just cares about who's DOing it to us.

   Sorry Hutch. It has everything to do with exactly what you're asking me. from MrDo  9/25/2009 11:54:25 AM
 
You can't ask me now why we're not doing "it", if you had no intention of ever doing "it", when you had the chance.

If it was not a good idea then, why is it a good idea now?

I also have a feeling that you don't know the definition of the term "socialists." It just a word you've heard, and kept on repeating much like a parrot.

   A possible reason you (Mr.DO) thinks that Hutch doesn't know what a from BC  9/25/2009 9:51:15 PM
 Socialist is, could simply be because you are one and do not realize it!

   Now a gag order on all Medicare info......... from Hutch #10968  9/26/2009 12:04:12 AM
 Yes, Mr Do, now your SOCIALIST Messiah has issued a gag order on all information sources for information about the impact of the SOCIALISTIC health care plan on senior citizens and the raping of the Medicare system...... The fact that you would question my understanding of the word socialist without questioning the motivation of one Barack Hussein Obama and his plans for this country speaks volumes...........and the only logic I can see in your assinine responses are that you either do not understand the issues or you are a socialist also and either alternative is very frightening....... Hutch

   Actually Hutch...you and many others don't know the difference............... from MrDo  10/21/2009 3:58:48 PM
 

.....between Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism.

Now that my friend..........is the truth.

BwA

   My thoughts---caution brain at attempted work from TnkrDrvr #10411  11/12/2009 7:26:51 PM
 I continue to read through the posts and consider the line "...the war was for oil...". And here is my simple opinion, and a fact to tag along with it. I think (watch out for the smoke and sparks) that President Bush really believed that Al Qaeda was a threat, and that Iraq was a threat to stability to the Gulf Region, additionally Saddam's posture and willingness to use WMDs suggested a real, not imagined threat (despite those that may agree with Eric Fromm's assertions). I don't know of ANY president from either party that would have committed American treasure because of unfinished business from a previous administration or because their hawkish, jingositic propensities would have driven them to it.
A fact, if you will, and you may disagree, is that defending the free-flow of crude from the world's largest supply region is in the US's AND international interests. If you don't believe this, consider the rhetoric from Iran or Venezuela when international pressure mounts for governmental trasnparency. The standard reaction by either is to threaten to use oil as a weapon by witholding it from the markets and attempt to create enough concern with speculators to spike the price. I will acknowledge that other considerations come into oil prices, including stringent regulation on the creation of new US refineries thus bottlenecking production and distillates. My point being, that US foreign policy, under democrats and republicans has been to defend our own and our allies' interests, be it from WMD (as had been used by Iraq against Iran and in Halabja) or global instability from a country's ability to attempt to stranglehold a vital resource. Do the Saudis, Jordanians, and Qataris fall under this umbrella, whether you like it or not, yes. A good read is the National Security Strategy of United States (last published in March 2006). I talked to a spokesperson from the National Security Council a few months back and he said that President Obama would eventually get to writing one, but usually it takes about 1.5 years, btw President Bush's first one didn't come out until 2002. You may not like why we get into conflicts, but the deductive reasoning for "high oil prices" doesn't pass muster. Otherwise, with the ongoing conflict in the Gulf Region, prices should be continuing to rise. There were a number of factors contributing to the issue, not one of which can discernably connected to any US administrations policy toward energy. Don't bring it weak. God Bless!!
VR
Steve-O