dick, No, I'm saying that perhaps the system must be destroyed. WTF do you THINK I was talking about?
On Aug 3, 10:34 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > So your response is that they should never be held to what they say and > really not even what they do because they are always crooks? Don't buy > that one. I am not a 6-year old but I know that if I ran a business > the way this crew runs the federal government I would be out of > business and in court on lawsuit after lawsuit - and yet you are saying > no biggie. > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > dick, > > > You are attempting to not understand that it is our political system > > itself that is corrupt and broken. To not realize that for a long time > > American voters only choice has been the fucking bum they thought > > would to the least amount to damage. You feign shock and dismay at > > finding out professional politicians exaggerate and even lie as if you > > were a 6 year old being told Santa Claus is not real. Republicans are > > not going to "fix" any problems "caused" by Democrats. They will just > > replace them with "problems" for us all that THEY like. Same thing > > goes for the Democrats. > > And, trust me on this, CONGRESS is NOT going to reform CONGRESS. > > Some of you guys want to pretend our political system was just > > invented 6 months or so ago. ridiculous. I'll be deliriously happy if > > this administration is just a TINY BIT more transparent that the past > > one. > > > On Aug 3, 9:50 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> For a change I can agree with you. However the devil is in the details > >> with these people. Your last paragraph is why I look for some > >> Cincinnatus to come on the scene and do the right thing. I certainly > >> don't expect it from this crew. > > >> I found it interesting that the congressman from upstate New York was > >> quoted in the media lately that he would no longer hold town hall > >> meetings since he could not get a good dialogue going - meaning that the > >> people who showed up told him what he was supporting was not what they > >> elected him to support. He did not like having to answer for what he > >> was doing - and he was a Blue Dog Democrat. > > >> Then there was the senator from Missouri who called the cops when the > >> constituents got too rowdy in complaining about what she was doing in > >> DC. Guess she couldn't handle the opposition of her own constituents. > >> Another Democrat. > > >> But we are having an administration and a congress dedicated to > >> transparency, don'tcha know. Nothing hidden at all. No siree Bob, > >> nothing hidden anywhere. Just czars and tiny little people who get so > >> puffed up about how important they are. > > >> Hollywood wrote: > > >>> dick, > > >>> Hmmmm, don't let anyone with a degree in law be invilved in writing > >>> ANY bill. Make it law that bills must be written using language an > >>> average citizen with a public High School education can understand. > > >>> I want that as well. But good luck getting those Republican AND > >>> Democratic assholes to take any sort of responsibility for their > >>> actions. Cinyers is right in his statement. Could YOU read and > >>> understand a 1,000 page bill in 48 hours? I couldn't it. > >>> Bills are all about keeping people from knowing what you're REALLY > >>> doing, the REAL effect it will have on your life. You just give them > >>> noble-sounding titles so people will be afraid to go on record as > >>> having voted against them. > > >>> On Aug 3, 8:49 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> What good would that do. All they would talk about was the high points > >>>> that San Fran Nan and Waxman wanted - and even then it is the wording of > >>>> the bill that causes the problems. You need to actually see how it is > >>>> worded so you can tell what the real significance of the various parts > >>>> of the bill are - and also whether you have one part canceling another. > >>>> Why put it on PBS. I can just see the commentary from PBS on that one. > >>>> Daniel Schorr telling yu what he wants you to hear. No, I want the > >>>> congressman to actually read and understand what he is voting for. > >>>> Another point is what good would the questioning be at the testimony. > >>>> It would be like the priests in the Middle Ages reading to the peasants > >>>> what the Bible said and they interpreted it in the way to make the most > >>>> money for the Church. The questioning could only be based on what they > >>>> were told and not on the tricky parts of the bill. > > >>>> Hollywood wrote: > > >>>>> dick, > > >>>>> How about this? Someone wrote that bill, or it would not exist. Have > >>>>> those people testify in public in front of an appropiate Congressional > >>>>> committee as to what is in that bill. The key it that the testimony > >>>>> must be given UNDER OATH and put that testimoney on the internet and > >>>>> on PBS. And then prosecute to the fullest any lies caught with no > >>>>> statute of limitations. > > >>>>> On Aug 2, 8:48 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> Too Big to Pass > >>>>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php> > > >>>>>> <http://twitter.com/home?status=Reading:%20Too%20Big%20to%20Pass%20at%...> > >>>>>> Share Post > >>>>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php#> > >>>>>> Print > >>>>>> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php?format=print> > >>>>>> August 1, 2009 Posted by John at 6:44 PM > > >>>>>> One of the most notorious news stories of the past week was Democratic > >>>>>> Congressman John Conyers' ridiculing > >>>>>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535244,00.html> of the idea that > >>>>>> he > >>>>>> and his fellow legislators should actually read bills--here, the health > >>>>>> care "reform" act--before voting on them: > > >>>>>> I love these members that get up and say, Read the bill! Well, what > >>>>>> good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you've > >>>>>> read > >>>>>> the bill? > > >>>>>> The version of the health care bill that passed the House's Energy and > >>>>>> Commerce Committee on a 31-28 vote is here > >>>>>> <http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf>. I've > >>>>>> spent some time looking at it and, unlike most people, I am > >>>>>> professionally qualified, in theory, to understand it. But, at over > >>>>>> 1,000 pages, it's a pretty hopeless task. > > >>>>>> So I would propose a simple, bright-line rule. In recent months many > >>>>>> observers have said that if a company is too big to fail (i.e., in a > >>>>>> pinch the government will bail it out), then it is too big to exist. I > >>>>>> think there is a lot of merit to that idea. Here is my corollary: if a > >>>>>> bill is too vast for a Congressman to read and understand, it is too > >>>>>> big > >>>>>> to pass. If a Congressman can't read the bill, he shouldn't vote for > >>>>>> it. > >>>>>> The appropriate response to any such legislation is: just vote "No." > > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024175.php-Hidequoted > >>>>>> text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
