Zeb, Why, in this case at least, you are absolutely correct. Such a response on my part was uncalled for and you have my apology. Please continue and expand on your thoughts concerning special interests groups. I will admit my mistakes and errors in judgement when they are pointed out to me.
On Aug 3, 11:13 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > You're even disagreeable and obnoxious when people agree with you. > That's a fine personality trait. People must avoid you like the > plague. > > On Aug 3, 12:00 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zeb, > > > Well fucking DUUUUUH......WTF do yiu think I'm talking about? > > > On Aug 3, 10:56 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Who writes a 1000 page medical care bill or a 1000 page bill of any > > > kind? Believe it or not, much of the legislation is written by the > > > special interest groups the legislation will affect. > > > > On Aug 3, 11:17 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> 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-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
