On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Sam wrote:
> How did it get there?
>
> Talking about it will expose all the lies used to sneak it through.
> That will cost many seats in November. Best to hide it, the less
> people know about it the less they will complain.
>
> Glad to see you're into the whole
Are you flustered again?
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> You are truly delusional Sam.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:06 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: If you can
No the response was (for the Patriot Act) that if you oppose this you are
unpatriotic and don't care about the security of America.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:15 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: If you can'
You are truly delusional Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:06 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: If you can't beat 'em...
How did it get there?
Talking about it will expose all the lies used to sneak it through.
That
Imagine the uproar that would have occurred if that same response was
given to comments about the Patriot Act.
Just because its in place does not mean it should not be debatable.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>> The Democr
How did it get there?
Talking about it will expose all the lies used to sneak it through.
That will cost many seats in November. Best to hide it, the less
people know about it the less they will complain.
Glad to see you're into the whole sheeple are to stupid to know what's
good for them line.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Casey Dougall <
ca...@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Sam wrote:
>
>> The Democrats blocked it because they didn't want to talk about it.
>> If Obama care is so good why hide it? Open government ha :)
>>
>
> Because it's alre
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Sam wrote:
> The Democrats blocked it because they didn't want to talk about it.
> If Obama care is so good why hide it? Open government ha :)
>
Because it's already in place, move on to other issues still open to debate.
~~~
The Democrats blocked it because they didn't want to talk about it.
If Obama care is so good why hide it? Open government ha :)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Obama nominated him, so he did try. However, I blame Max Baucus as
> much as I do Republicans for blocking the
...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 11:56 AM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: If you can't beat 'em...
>
>
> How do we know since he didn't even try?
>
> Democrats wanted to avoid another health care debate.
>
> Krauthammer says it best:
> http:
ly 09, 2010 11:56 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: If you can't beat 'em...
How do we know since he didn't even try?
Democrats wanted to avoid another health care debate.
Krauthammer says it best:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/08/krauth
I know.
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I have always thought that. I think the actions of the republicans have
> been unconstitutional, very anti-democratic and anti-American.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldf
I have always thought that. I think the actions of the republicans have
been unconstitutional, very anti-democratic and anti-American.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:53 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: If you can't
How do we know since he didn't even try?
Democrats wanted to avoid another health care debate.
Krauthammer says it best:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/08/krauthammer_democrats_dont_want_health_care_debated_again.html
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> It
s to get a
functional government where congressional republicans are obstructing his
ability to do so on partisan reasons rather than based on any issue.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:21 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: If
Afraid of or tired of?
-Original Message-
From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:35 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: If you can't beat 'em...
...do an end around.
http://nyti.ms/caLJqZ
Not sure how I feel about this.
On one hand, the Republicans wer
Let's see if you still think that in November :)
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> Yeah...they really need to bring it back to what the constitution says...a
> simple majority.
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfus
Yeah...they really need to bring it back to what the constitution says...a
simple majority.
On Jul 8, 2010 12:41 PM, "morgan l" wrote:
I see the problem more as needing a super-majority to vote in favor of
having a vote on a bill that only requires a simple majority to pass. Seems
backwards to
They'd both be terrible places to live. You'd need to split it in three
so that the moderates would have a sane place to live.
-Original Message-
From: Medic [mailto:hofme...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 5:43 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: If you can't
I see the problem more as needing a super-majority to vote in favor of
having a vote on a bill that only requires a simple majority to pass. Seems
backwards to me. Yes, political minority voices need to have some sway, but
they should not be able to hold up the proceedings.
That, or bring back th
The problem is that to do anything, the Senate requires a super
majority, which is what the Republicans have been taking advantagenof
and filibustering just about everything.
On Wednesday, July 7, 2010, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Just because you have the power, does not mean you should wield it.
>
Just following your lead.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Medic wrote:
>
> Stay classy Sam.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=hous
Stay classy Sam.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I'm not even sure what country you're from but I think I took a shit in it
> :P
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Medic wrote:
> >
> > I am more concerned with my own country. However you probably couldn't
> even
> > find it on
I'm not even sure what country you're from but I think I took a shit in it :P
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> I am more concerned with my own country. However you probably couldn't even
> find it on a map so I'll have to stick with musing about your broke ass
> country.
>
~
I am more concerned with my own country. However you probably couldn't even
find it on a map so I'll have to stick with musing about your broke ass
country.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Shouldn't you be more concerned with your own broke ass country?
> :P
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7,
Shouldn't you be more concerned with your own broke ass country?
:P
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> I really do wonder sometimes if the right and the left should just split the
> country into two smaller ones. Even split in half there would still be two
> very large countries.
And you know what will happen, you'll end up having what will be
theCanadian Federation taking over half of the current US territory,
and the rest will be known as Redneckistan.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Medic wrote:
>
> I really do wonder sometimes if the right and the left should just sp
I really do wonder sometimes if the right and the left should just split the
country into two smaller ones. Even split in half there would still be two
very large countries.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://ww
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> But, using that logic, what is to stop him from giving anyone a position?
That is a very serious issue, indeed, which is why when Democrats held
the Senate under Bush they would do things like not technically go
into recess so that Bush cou
Why should we assume the appointments are all good and the GOP is
being spiteful?
Maybe if they focused on appointments and other important government
business instead of forcing through pork spending in health care and
tarp we wouldn't have this problem.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:09 PM, G Money
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> But, using that logic, what is to stop him from giving anyone a position?
>
Frankly, the only thing stopping him is his obligation to his boss...you and
me. In a few years we get to decide if we want to re-hire him or not.
~~
But, using that logic, what is to stop him from giving anyone a position?
I think the idea of confirming candidates for certain posts is a good
thing, but, like most everything in our political system, it has
become a tool of retaliation and nopt really doing what it was meant
to do. And for that
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Judah McAuley
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Pretty dysfunctional, but that is how it currently stands.
>
> That is quite an understatement.
>
i dunno, that doesn't seem THAT bad to me. I mean, ultimately, we need
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
>
> Pretty dysfunctional, but that is how it currently stands.
That is quite an understatement.
--
Scott Stroz
---
You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can
wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I will admit ignorance on this topic but if the Dems have a majority,
> how is it the Repubs can cause this many issues with confirmations?
The big thing about the Senate is that everything can take a long
time. Most of the Senate work is do
Just because you have the power, does not mean you should wield it.
Congress is there for checks and balances. Go around them too often
and it will cause troubles - and it does not matter which party
controls Congress or White House at the time.
I will admit ignorance on this topic but if the De
Ah... it's good to be king.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
> It's within his powers to appoint him, so might as well let congress focus
> on something else. To be honest, Obama should bypass congress and senate any
> change he can.
>
~~
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I can buy that, but this seems like a pretty important post - maybe
> that is why the WH is forcing this guy through, or maybe there is
> something they do not want us knowing about the guy that may be vetted
> during confirmation hearings.
I can't say for sure. I haven't seen anything about this guy pop up in
my healthcare news summary that I get emailed every day, so I don't
think it is really a huge deal inside the industry, but that doesn't
mean that it isn't something that Republicans would be up in arms
over. The guy is head of
I can buy that, but this seems like a pretty important post - maybe
that is why the WH is forcing this guy through, or maybe there is
something they do not want us knowing about the guy that may be vetted
during confirmation hearings.
Still seems kind of sneaky and underhanded. Not something I th
I'd guess that there are just only so many fights you can reasonably
carry on at once. Last I read, less than 30 out of the like 75 federal
court nominations that Obama had made have been voted on. It has been
increasingly hard to put a functioning government in place.
Judah
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010
41 matches
Mail list logo
