exactly my point ... due to the fact that both houses were controlled by one group, they could do anything ... but still the system requires that legislation originates from the house formally, no matter whose version it is ... then properly moves to the senate ... and so on ...
does not matter that such legislation was passed in a solid partisan manner ... such is the break of the game but to do so, w/o reading, discussing, etc. ... ????? ... does not bode well for the country ... sayang ... if I were the republicans now, even if it ends up making BO look good, I would amend the ACA to solve the premium and cost related issues which was hidden from everyone admittedly so by the ACA architect ... since apparently, the current administration does not know how to implement such a massive project ... fund it at the back end similar to how military are funded ... wouldn't that solve a lot of problems economically? ... again I say, America has so much money it is coming out of all its openings ... instead of wasting taxpayers money, give it to them as health care ... balc ... not a democrat, not a republican, not an independent ... an issue oriented person ... ________________________________ From: Cesar Lumba <[email protected]> To: CFGG Assoc. *CFGG CFGG <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [archersnook] Re: [DLSHS59] 21st Century Feudalism Aljun, The Affordable Care Act originated in the Senate. It was crafted by a group of Senate Democrats and was passed by the Senate when there were still 60 Democrats in that body. The House passed its own version but Pelosi was forced to table the House version so the Democrat-controlled House could quickly pass the Senate version. They had to do that because the Republicans had won the majority in the House in the 2010 elections and if they waited until 2011, Speaker Boehner would surely have refused to take up the Affordable Care Act and health reform would never have happened. C On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM, 'Aquilino Alcantara' via Center for Good Governance <[email protected]> wrote: but when you say nothing gets done in congress, why is it that only republicans get blamed? ... heck, democrats had a supermajority when BO got elected, and so on and on and yet only the other side gets blamed? ... > > >is it because of the attitude that what I do is always right and what the >other side does is always wrong and therefore when there is gridlock the other >side is blamed? ... fair? ... > > >I can discuss things with my own way of thinking ... not how those guys think >... I can think and discuss for myself ... issues issues issues ... > > >heck: I am and have been always for obamacare: having health coverage for >all americans ... so does that make me a democrat ... heck NO ... that makes >me thinking me ... > > >and yet no one on your side thought that passing that law so we can know what >is it find that objectionable? ... w/o having read the legislation? ... ugh >... > > > From: Cesar Lumba <[email protected]> >To: CFGG Assoc. *CFGG CFGG <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; DLSHS59 ><[email protected]>; Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance ><[email protected]>; 62ndforum ><[email protected]>; archersnook <[email protected]>; >Moonglow <[email protected]>; >"[email protected]" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 9:06 AM > >Subject: Re: [archersnook] Re: [DLSHS59] 21st Century Feudalism > > > >Aljun, > > >That is indeed the process, but not the whole process. Unfortunately, the >legislation that came out of the House during the past four years were ones >that would never pass the Senate. There were 31 bills that the House passed >that would repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those bills never saw the light of >day in the Senate. > > >Bills also originate in the Senate and the House is expected, under normal >circumstances, to take up the Senate-passed bill. > > >In today's extremely poisoned environment, nothing that the Senate Democrats >want gets passed in the Senate because the Republicans have the power of >filibuster. And nothing that originates from the Senate Republicans are >scheduled by Harry Reid for debate and consideration precisely because of the >poisoned environment. Also because they are too extreme. A budget that would >privatize Social Security and/or Medicare, for example, would be a non-starter >for Democrats. > > >The result is nothing gets done. And the House bills, which Boehner makes >sure pass in the whole House are those bills that the Tea Party loves, so they >don't stand a Chinaman's chance in the Reid-led Senate. > > >Beginning in early 2015, when both the House and the Senate shall be in >Republican control, some bills might pass in both the House and the Senate, >that is if those bills are not filibustered by the Senate Democrats. The >problem is, if Obama thinks that the bills are too extreme and are not >products of wise compromise, Obama will surely veto those bills and they will >simply die a natural death. > > >Since both the House and the Senate shall be in Republican hands, the gridlock >in 2015 will be blamed on the Republicans. Don't even think of 2016. It will >be a year of wasted opportunities because it is an election year. > > >So the Republicans have only a one-year opportunity window. If they insist on >legislating as Tea Party folks, you can forget about any meaningful >legislation coming out of Congress in 2015. > > >The Senate will be back in Democratic hands in early 2017 and the Republican >majority in the House will be greatly diminished. > > >C > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:02 AM, 'Aquilino Alcantara' via Center for Good >Governance <[email protected]> wrote: > >lets stay with this gridlock topic then: >> >> >>correct me if I am wrong but aren't legislation supposed to originate in the >>house initially? ... when passed, then it goes to the senate? ... and if >>senate passes it, then it goes to the desk of the president for his >>signature? ... then it becomes law? ... >> >> >>isn't that the process? ... >> >> >> From: Cesar Lumba <[email protected]> >>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>Cc: CFGG Assoc. *CFGG CFGG <[email protected]>; >>DLSHS59 <[email protected]>; Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance >><[email protected]>; 62ndforum >><[email protected]>; archersnook <[email protected]>; >>Moonglow <[email protected]>; >>"[email protected]" >><[email protected]> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:16 AM >>Subject: Re: [archersnook] Re: [DLSHS59] 21st Century Feudalism >> >> >> >>Cholo, >> >> >>Harry Reid is a symbol of the dysfunction. He is being blamed for the >>gridlock, along with Obama. But so are the Republicans in the Senate, who >>have blocked nearly all the bills introduced by the Democrats. >> >> >>In fact, people have been so upset by Mitch McConnell he was supposed to lose >>his Senate seat. But the Koch brothers and Karl Rove, using money whose >>origins nobody knows, poured millions into the Kentucky Senate contest and >>were able to make McConnell's Democratic opponent look unqualified to be a >>senator. >> >> >>As far as the Democratic billionaires supporting the Democratic candidates, >>you can name one - George Soros of Moveon.org and a couple of others. On the >>Republican side, there are the Koch brothers, there's Sheldon Adelson and a >>cast of characters. >> >> >>Top Billionaire Campaign Donors Favor Republicans In 2014 >>Posted: 09/26/2014 8:58 pm EDT Updated: 09/26/2014 8:59 pm EDT >> * >> * Share718 >> * Tweet177 >> * >> * Email17 >> * Comment479 >> * >> * >> * >> * >>WASHINGTON -- The wealthiest Americans are playing a larger role in politics >>these days, thanks to campaign finance laws loosened by the Supreme Court's >>conservative majority. Billionaires can now make unlimited contributions to >>super PACs, or, if they prefer discretion, to nonprofit groups that don't >>disclose their donors. >>At the same time, the rich are making contributions directly to candidates >>and political parties. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in April in >>McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that those with the means may >>contribute to as many candidates and political party committees as they >>please. >>The Huffington Post reported on Thursday that Americans whose fortunes exceed >>$1 billion and their families have contributed a total of $113.7 million in >>this year's races for federal offices. Billionaires have given $27.4 million >>directly to parties, political campaigns and leadership PACs, with more than >>one-quarter of those direct contributions from just 20 billionaires. >>Contributions from individuals and their families come from Federal Election >>Commission records for party committees, candidate committees and leadership >>PACs affiliated with candidates. >>Donors are limited to giving $2,600 per election to each candidate. A donor >>who gives the maximum to a candidate in both a primary and a general election >>contributes a total of $5,200. For candidates who have run in a special >>election and face a subsequent election within the same two-year cycle, >>donors can give up to $10,400. National party committees can receive $32,400 >>per year from a donor, and may accept an additional contribution in the event >>of a recount. State party committees can receive up to $10,000 per year. >>Leadership PACs may accept an annual maximum of $5,000. >>Below are the 20 top billionaire donors to these committees for the 2014 >>election, so far:1) Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas: $814,300 (100 percent to >>Republicans) >>Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images >>Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to super PACs in the 2012 >>election, has flown under the radar so far in this year's midterms. Adelson >>has not registered a single super PAC donation this cycle. Instead, the CEO >>of Las Vegas Sands Corp. has chosen to make contributions to dark money >>nonprofits, allowing him to avoid publicity. Politico reported that Adelson >>had donated $10 million to the Karl Rove-founded nonprofit Crossroads GPS. >>Adelson, with a fortune estimated at $28.5 billion, has reached the top of >>billionaire donors to campaigns and parties with help from his family. His >>contributions are combined with those of his wife, Miriam, his daughters, >>Shelley, Sivan and Yasmin, and the latter two daughters' husbands. All >>contributions have gone to Republicans. The Republican National Committee >>received $324,000 from the Adelsons, while the National Republican >>Congressional Committee brought in $226,800. Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.) was the >>leading recipient among candidates, with $36,400. >>While Adelson's interests include stability for his business in China, and >>banning online gambling, a threat to his profit at home, his main political >>concern is the unflinching support of the U.S. for Israel. Adelson is a major >>supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and spent tens of >>millions to support pro-Israel charities.2) Richard DeVos, Holland, Michigan: >>$692,450 (100 percent to Republicans) >>AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack >>Richard DeVos, the Amway co-founder worth a reported $6.8 billion, heads a >>large family active in Republican Party politics and conservative causes. The >>DeVos family has given $692,450 to Republican Party committees and candidates >>in 2014. The Michigan-based family has, for decades, funded conservative >>causes, including thepassage of anti-labor right-to-work laws, opposition to >>abortion and same-sex marriage, and the creation of charter schools. All of >>their contributions have gone to Republicans, with more than half going to >>candidates.3) Charles Koch, Wichita, Kansas, and David Koch, New York: >>$682,100 (100 percent to Republicans) >>Ron Galella via Getty Images >>Brothers Charles and David Koch, heirs and operators of the nation's largest >>private company, Koch Industries, have become the most prominent faces of >>billionaire politics through their vast and well-financed political machine. >>In addition to the millions spent by groups connected to them, the Kochs and >>their families have contributed $682,100 to Republican Party committees and >>candidates in 2014. The Koch political network includes groups like Americans >>for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. These groups plan to >>spend close to $300 million on the midterm elections.4) Charles Schwab, San >>Francisco: $487,100 (100 percent to Republicans) >>Bloomberg via Getty Images >>You've probably seen the rotoscope-animated commercials for his discount >>brokerage service on television. Behind that business is a major Republican >>Party donor also linked to the Koch political network. Schwab and his family >>have given $487,100 to Republicans in 2014. The majority of this has gone to >>party committees, like the Republican National Committee and National >>Republican Senatorial Committee.5) Steve Wynn, Las Vegas: $481,200 (100 >>percent to Republicans) >>Bloomberg via Getty Images >>Steve Wynn, operator of Wynn Casinos in Las Vegas and Macau, became known >>forpolitical tirades during earnings calls with investors following the >>election of President Barack Obama. Wynn said that Obama holds a "weird >>political philosophy," and makes "speeches about redistribution" using >>language not heard, "except from pure socialists." In 2012, Wynn emerged as a >>major funder of Rove's Crossroads GPS. Wynn and his family have given >>$481,200 in 2014 in disclosed contributions. Nearly all of this went to >>Republican Party committees.6) Ken Griffin, Chicago: $473,609 (100 percent to >>Republicans) >>CNBC via Getty Images >>Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin in 2012 made headlines for saying that the >>rich have "an insufficient influence" in politics. He proceeded to muddle >>this statement by becoming one of the leading donors to political campaigns >>and super PACs. While Griffin and his wife Anne recently announced they were >>divorcing, their contributions since the beginning of 2013 totaled $473,609. >>Griffin donated to Obama in 2008, but now all of his contributions go to >>Republicans.7) Vince and Linda McMahon, Greenwich, Connecticut: $456,050 (100 >>percent to Republicans) >>Jim Spellman via Getty Images >>Vince and Linda McMahon, operators of World Wrestling Entertainment, emerged >>as major Republican Party donors in recent years as Linda McMahon attempted >>to launch her own political career. After two failed Senate runs, Linda >>McMahon has fallen into place as one of the party's most prolific donors. She >>and her husband have given $456,050 to Republicans in 2014, with large >>amounts to the party committees. Linda McMahon also provides strong support >>to Republican women candidates and incumbents.8) Paul Singer, New York: >>$451,700 (100 percent to Republicans) >>Associated Press >>Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is known for buying distressed foreign >>debt and then reaping big rewards when the payments come through. He is also >>a major Republican Party donor who has expanded his profile within the party >>in recent years. The billionaire financier runs a super PAC, a nonprofit and >>a joint fundraising committee to funnel his money around the country, giving >>to other unlimited money groups and directly to candidates and parties. >>Singer is also a major supporter of right-wing political parties in Israel >>and advocates a hawkish foreign policy in support of Israel and against its >>enemies. Overall, he and his family have given $451,700 to Republicans, in >>addition to the millions to super PACs.9) James Simons, East Setauket, New >>York: $341,100 (98 percent to Democrats) >>Bloomberg via Getty Images >>James Simons, founder of the high frequency trading hedge fund Renaissance >>Technologies, is the top donor to Democratic Party candidates and committees >>in 2014. Simons, a major super PAC donor, also has given $341,100 to >>political candidates and parties, almost entirely to Democrats. His sole >>contribution to a Republican was $5,200 to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).10) >>Philip Anschutz, Denver: $323,200 (100 percent to Republicans) >>Associated Press >>Billionaire entertainment investor Philip Anschutz has long been a supporter >>of Republican politics. He is a major backer of evangelical Christian >>organizations opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. He also is a major >>supporter of charter schools, and funded the pro-charter documentary "Waiting >>for Superman." Anschutz and his family have given $323,200 to Republicans in >>2014. Most of that has gone to party committees. >>11) Stanley Hubbard, St. Paul, Minnesota: $321,150 (95 percent to Republicans) >>12) J. Joe Ricketts, Little Jackson Hole, Wyoming: $320,325 (100 percent to >>Republicans) >>13) Haim Saban, Beverly Hills, California: $310,000 (100 percent to Democrats) >>14) Charles Johnson, Hillsborough, California: $309,400 (100 percent to >>Republicans) >>15) Stephen Bechtel, San Francisco: $307,601 (100 percent to Republicans) >>16) John Catsimatidis, New York: $284,550 (85 percent to Republicans) >>17) John Fisher, San Francisco: $279,400 (96 percent to Republicans) >>18) Kenny Troutt, Dallas: $261,400 (100 percent to Republicans) >>19) Bruce Kovner, New York: $257,600 (92 percent to Republicans) >>20) Marc Rowan, New York: $256,600 (63 percent to Republicans) >>And these are just the disclosed billionaires' contributions. >> >> >>C >> >> >> >> >>C >> >> >>On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:10 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>dsfunctional..i agree ..all because of Harry Reid who let all the bills sit >>idle...FINALLY HE WILL BE GONE...GOVERNMENT WILL FUNCTION AGAIN!! if you look >>around most Americans are so happy he finally will be gone..... >>> >>> >>> >>>From: "Cesar Lumba [email protected] [archersnook]" >>><[email protected]> >>>To: "CFGG Assoc. *CFGG CFGG" <[email protected]> >>>Cc: "DLSHS59" <[email protected]>, "Worldwide-Filipino-Alliance" >>><[email protected]>, "62ndforum" >>><[email protected]>, "archersnook" <[email protected]>, >>>"Moonglow" <[email protected]>, >>>"[email protected]" >>><[email protected]> >>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:09:09 PM >>>Subject: [archersnook] Re: [DLSHS59] 21st Century Feudalism >>> >>> >>> >>>Aljun, >>> >>> >>>Senators and congresspersons must run for re-election every two or six >>>years. SC justices can simply thumb their noses at the American people for >>>the rest of their lives, once appointed. They answer to no one. >>> >>> >>>Besides, the Legislative and Executive branches check each other. Bills >>>that the Legislative branch passes can be and often are vetoed by the >>>president, while the Legislature often says no to the president's budget and >>>appointments. >>> >>> >>>As to why the Republicans won by landslide, Democrats got the lion share of >>>the blame for our dysfunctional government. How did that happen? I know >>>that you watch Fox News all the time. And I know you must have noticed the >>>round-the-clock advertising financed by the billionaires (known and unknown) >>>that demonized the Democratic candidates. >>> >>> >>>This happened in Las Vegas and in the entire United States. >>> >>> >>>The money poured in by the Koches and the unnamed Republican billionaires >>>were more than enough to pay for all available advertising slots 24 hours a >>>day during the last few weeks prior to November 4. >>> >>> >>>C >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM, 'Aquilino Alcantara' via Center for Good >>>Governance <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>then you should be advocating term limits for congress, should be good as >>>well? ... >>>> >>>> >>>>tell me about billionaires then ... >>>> >>>> >>>>tell me also about: if legislation by democrats are so good for the >>>>country and legislation by republicans so bad, why do republicans get >>>>elected at all? ... >>>> >>>> >>>>maybe you should consult lynn for the answer to this question? ... because >>>>lynn did not answer it as well ... >>>> >>>> >>>>From: Cesar Lumba <[email protected]> >>>>To: CFGG Assoc. *CFGG CFGG <[email protected]> >>>>Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; World-Wide Fil >>>>Alliance <[email protected]>; 62ndforum >>>><[email protected]>; Archersnook <[email protected]>; >>>>Moonglow <[email protected]>; >>>>"[email protected]" >>>><[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:48 AM >>>>Subject: Re: [DLSHS59] 21st Century Feudalism >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Aljun, >>>> >>>> >>>>It is true that presidents, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, >>>>appoint the justices. But once the justices are approved by the Senate they >>>>can and do act independently and dictatorially. SC Justices sit in office >>>>for life. Theoretically they can be impeached. But how many justices in >>>>your lifetime have been impeached? >>>> >>>> >>>>In my lifetime it is exactly ZERO. In your lifetime too, probably. >>>> >>>> >>>>That's because like all dictators, the Supreme Court justices have enablers >>>>in the Legislative as well as in the Executive branches. >>>> >>>> >>>>The solution is to limit the terms of justices. Force them to retire when >>>>they hit 70, which is the case with Philippine SC justices. >>>> >>>> >>>>This way, justices must face the American public and defend their past >>>>decisions once they leave office. Today, justices leave the office in >>>>horizontal positions or in wheel chairs, burdened by dementia. >>>> >>>> >>>>And by the way, there are far fewer Democratic billionaires, so don't even >>>>go there. >>>> >>>> >>>>C >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM, 'Aquilino Alcantara' via Center for Good >>>>Governance <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>so how much does the billionaires on the other side contribute? ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>who puts those judges in the supreme court? ... the president vetted by >>>>>congress ... so? ... whats the beef? ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>From: "Cesar Lumba [email protected] [DLSHS59]" >>>>><[email protected]> >>>>>To: World-Wide Fil Alliance <[email protected]>; >>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]>; CFGG Assoc. *CFGG >>>>>CFGG <[email protected]>; 62ndforum >>>>><[email protected]>; Archersnook <[email protected]>; >>>>>Moonglow <[email protected]>; >>>>>"[email protected]" >>>>><[email protected]> >>>>>Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:37 AM >>>>>Subject: [DLSHS59] 21st Century Feudalism >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Las Vegas Sun published one of my letters again. More than 80% of my >>>>>letters are published by the Sun. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>LETTER TO THE EDITOR: >>>>>This is 21st-century feudalism >>>>>By Cesar Lumba, Las Vegas >>>>>Monday, Nov. 10, 2014 | 9:24 a.m. >>>>>View more of the Sun's opinion section >>>>> * Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint >>>>> * Columnists - local and syndicated writers >>>>> * Letters to the editor - readers' views >>>>> * Write a letter to the editor >>>>>The Supreme Court says money in politics is free speech. That being the >>>>>case, the Koch brothers, having given an estimated $200 million to their >>>>>political causes this election cycle, have equaled the voices of at least >>>>>2 million Americans. >>>>>Sound like a feudal system with a twist? You’re darned right. >>>>>Grass-roots Democrats must scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with >>>>>the estimated average $100 they contribute to the Democratic campaigns. >>>>>But people like the Koches and the unnamed contributors who funnel their >>>>>dark monies through Karl Rove have already bought and delivered the >>>>>elections for the Republicans. >>>>>This is like the Revenge of the Billionaires. There’s no stopping them. >>>>>Thanks to our reactionary Supreme Court, the voices of the country’s >>>>>handful of ultra-conservative, tax-hating and tax-avoiding billionaires >>>>>are worth a whole lot more than the voices of as many as 50 million >>>>>American voters. >>>>>These billionaire American aristocrats don’t care about issues like the >>>>>living wage, equal pay for equal work, immigration reform, shoring up the >>>>>middle class, the economy, health care for all, etc. They know today’s >>>>>elections are not about issues. Today’s elections are about who can write >>>>>the most million-dollar checks. >>>>>Shame on the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision. >>>>>And the Supreme Court promises more of the same in the future. In our >>>>>system of checks and balances, no one checks the Supreme Court. >>>>>With the executive and the legislative branches canceling each other out, >>>>>the Supreme Court reigns as the modern-day American dictator. >>>>>Share on email >>>>>Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareMore Sharing >>>>>Services0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>>"Center for Good Governance" group. >>>>>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>>email to [email protected]. >>>>>To post to this group, send email to >>>>>[email protected]. >>>>>Visit this group at >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >>>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>-- >>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Center for Good Governance" group. >>>>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>email to [email protected]. >>>>To post to this group, send email to >>>>[email protected]. >>>>Visit this group at >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>>"Center for Good Governance" group. >>>>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>>email to [email protected]. >>>>To post to this group, send email to >>>>[email protected]. >>>>Visit this group at >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >>>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>>__._,_.___ >>>Posted by: Cesar Lumba <[email protected]> >>>Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic >>> • Messages in this topic (2) >>>Visit Your Group >>> >>>• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>. >>> >>>__,_._,___ >>> >>> >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>"Center for Good Governance" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>email to [email protected]. >>To post to this group, send email to >>[email protected]. >>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>"Center for Good Governance" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>email to [email protected]. >>To post to this group, send email to >>[email protected]. >>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"Center for Good Governance" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to [email protected]. >To post to this group, send email to >[email protected]. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"Center for Good Governance" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to [email protected]. >To post to this group, send email to >[email protected]. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Center for Good Governance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Center for Good Governance" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/center-for-good-governance. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
