They were FOR it before they were AGAINST it.

No.. it was not pertinent to the conversation... it was off on a tangent.... you see.... what was in discussion was the fact the the bill had changed from what many Senators had originally supported... there was nothing in the discussion or in the idea behind the discussion about a verbal flub and politicized sound bite by John Kerry years ago

But nice try

Now... if you have a problem with some Senator changing their support when a bill is bastardized and changed from the original... or if you think that my point was wrong about this being a changed bill.... discuss.. I'd love to slap you around some more

I was unaware that you started this thread and therefore were appointed the thread direction hall monitor. Oh, that's right, you didn't and you weren't. Nice try, but epic fail.


no... I just pointed out the inherent BS in the OP's thread..... and then tried to keep ones like you and BUNKaneer from trying to change the focus when the bullshit was pointed out

nice try

That still doesn't explain you being an asshole, does it?
 
I was unaware that you started this thread and therefore were appointed the thread direction hall monitor. Oh, that's right, you didn't and you weren't. Nice try, but epic fail.


no... I just pointed out the inherent BS in the OP's thread..... and then tried to keep ones like you and BUNKaneer from trying to change the focus when the bullshit was pointed out

nice try

That still doesn't explain you being an asshole, does it?

Otherwise stated.. you have nothing....

Thank you for playing... see Don Pardo for some lovely parting gifts
 
no... I just pointed out the inherent BS in the OP's thread..... and then tried to keep ones like you and BUNKaneer from trying to change the focus when the bullshit was pointed out

nice try

That still doesn't explain you being an asshole, does it?

Otherwise stated.. you have nothing....

I gave up with them dave....they simply want to make fiction into fact so they can walk away being right.

Amazing how much those on the LEFT want to be RIGHT.

Kind of ironic.
 
I only heard about this commission because I was watching "Morning Joe" this morning. He brought it up that 7 Republican Senators were supporting this all the way until a vote was taken, and then they voted against it. The reason is because all seven are in races and don't want to be seen as working with Democrats, even the ones that sponsored the bill.

Joe Scarborough is most definitely a conservative. He goes on endlessly about "conservative principles". But he said it was a mistake to just NOT work with the Democrats for strictly political reasons and not work for the good of the country, also for strictly political reasons. Of course, I've been saying that for a year.

Republicans always put politics ahead of the good of the country. It's expected.
 
Yesterday, we singled out John McCain for once CO-SPONSORING -- and then yesterday voting AGAINST -- the bipartisan proposal to create an independent commission to reduce the debt. But as it turns out, there were five other Republicans who did this (Mike Crapo, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sam Brownback, John Ensign, and Jim Inhofe), and Robert Bennett, who remained a co-sponsor, also voted against it.

First Read - msnbc.com

---------------------

You see, seven Republicans worked on a "bipartisan proposal", some even sponsoring it. Then, when it came up for vote, they voted AGAINST it.

Were they ever for it? Did they make it up to have something else to vote against? Oh well, at least they gave Democrats something more to use for the next election, so the work wasn't wasted.
Partisanship = Party over principle (the People aren't a factor)
 
I only heard about this commission because I was watching "Morning Joe" this morning. He brought it up that 7 Republican Senators were supporting this all the way until a vote was taken, and then they voted against it. The reason is because all seven are in races and don't want to be seen as working with Democrats, even the ones that sponsored the bill.

Joe Scarborough is most definitely a conservative. He goes on endlessly about "conservative principles". But he said it was a mistake to just NOT work with the Democrats for strictly political reasons and not work for the good of the country, also for strictly political reasons. Of course, I've been saying that for a year.

Republicans always put politics ahead of the good of the country. It's expected.

No... you and the TV guy have all the insight and information :rolleyes:

Could have nothing to do with the thing being amended 10 times and looking nothing like the original intent :rolleyes:

As stated and definitively shown, it has been woefully modified.... and in fact, the only co-sponsorship by McCain was on one of the middle amendments.... so the statement of co-sponsorship is also intentionally misleading

And as for your little snide assumption at the end... your misguided opinion does not make it fact
 
I only heard about this commission because I was watching "Morning Joe" this morning. He brought it up that 7 Republican Senators were supporting this all the way until a vote was taken, and then they voted against it. The reason is because all seven are in races and don't want to be seen as working with Democrats, even the ones that sponsored the bill.

Joe Scarborough is most definitely a conservative. He goes on endlessly about "conservative principles". But he said it was a mistake to just NOT work with the Democrats for strictly political reasons and not work for the good of the country, also for strictly political reasons. Of course, I've been saying that for a year.

Republicans always put politics ahead of the good of the country. It's expected.

No... you and the TV guy have all the insight and information :rolleyes:

Could have nothing to do with the thing being amended 10 times and looking nothing like the original intent :rolleyes:

As stated and definitively shown, it has been woefully modified.... and in fact, the only co-sponsorship by McCain was on one of the middle amendments.... so the statement of co-sponsorship is also intentionally misleading

And as for your little snide assumption at the end... your misguided opinion does not make it fact

It was written to put together a bipartisan commission. The commission was to study a problem. How could that be amended 10 times?
 
I only heard about this commission because I was watching "Morning Joe" this morning. He brought it up that 7 Republican Senators were supporting this all the way until a vote was taken, and then they voted against it. The reason is because all seven are in races and don't want to be seen as working with Democrats, even the ones that sponsored the bill.

Joe Scarborough is most definitely a conservative. He goes on endlessly about "conservative principles". But he said it was a mistake to just NOT work with the Democrats for strictly political reasons and not work for the good of the country, also for strictly political reasons. Of course, I've been saying that for a year.

Republicans always put politics ahead of the good of the country. It's expected.

No... you and the TV guy have all the insight and information :rolleyes:

Could have nothing to do with the thing being amended 10 times and looking nothing like the original intent :rolleyes:

As stated and definitively shown, it has been woefully modified.... and in fact, the only co-sponsorship by McCain was on one of the middle amendments.... so the statement of co-sponsorship is also intentionally misleading

And as for your little snide assumption at the end... your misguided opinion does not make it fact

It was written to put together a bipartisan commission. The commission was to study a problem. How could that be amended 10 times?

Read rdean...read.
 
Nope.
Kerry was razzed for the WAY he said it.
Not for the fact that he refused to vote for a bill that he supported until it was changed.

That's simply not true. He was FOR the bill that made provisions to PAY FOR the 87 billiion. That is the bill Bush said he would veto.

And rightfully so, he was for the original bill and against the revisions.
He was razzed for not explaining that. He was razzed for saying "I was for it before I was against it"

No more spin please. I am getting bored here.

No he was razzed because rightwingers are phoney simpletons.
 
I was unaware that you started this thread and therefore were appointed the thread direction hall monitor. Oh, that's right, you didn't and you weren't. Nice try, but epic fail.


no... I just pointed out the inherent BS in the OP's thread..... and then tried to keep ones like you and BUNKaneer from trying to change the focus when the bullshit was pointed out

nice try

That still doesn't explain you being an asshole, does it?

He can't support what he claimed so he's gone 3rd grade on us. He must be new to this.
 
That's simply not true. He was FOR the bill that made provisions to PAY FOR the 87 billiion. That is the bill Bush said he would veto.

And rightfully so, he was for the original bill and against the revisions.
He was razzed for not explaining that. He was razzed for saying "I was for it before I was against it"

No more spin please. I am getting bored here.

No he was razzed because rightwingers are phoney simpletons.

Nope, he was razzed becuase he said something silly...and you and I can not deny that what he said, although accurate, was silly without an explanation of what he meant.

If rightwingers refers to all on the right, then you asre simply spewing crap.

I, for one, do not couple "left wingers" with the far left wing that believe that Bush had a hand in 9-11....

I see leftg wingers as those with an ideology that is not in agreement with my ideology.

DO you see all "right wingers" as simpletons?
 
no... I just pointed out the inherent BS in the OP's thread..... and then tried to keep ones like you and BUNKaneer from trying to change the focus when the bullshit was pointed out

nice try

That still doesn't explain you being an asshole, does it?

He can't support what he claimed so he's gone 3rd grade on us. He must be new to this.

Actually, he did. You were too lazy to click on the link.
 
I only heard about this commission because I was watching "Morning Joe" this morning. He brought it up that 7 Republican Senators were supporting this all the way until a vote was taken, and then they voted against it. The reason is because all seven are in races and don't want to be seen as working with Democrats, even the ones that sponsored the bill.

Joe Scarborough is most definitely a conservative. He goes on endlessly about "conservative principles". But he said it was a mistake to just NOT work with the Democrats for strictly political reasons and not work for the good of the country, also for strictly political reasons. Of course, I've been saying that for a year.

Republicans always put politics ahead of the good of the country. It's expected.

No... you and the TV guy have all the insight and information :rolleyes:

Could have nothing to do with the thing being amended 10 times and looking nothing like the original intent :rolleyes:

As stated and definitively shown, it has been woefully modified.... and in fact, the only co-sponsorship by McCain was on one of the middle amendments.... so the statement of co-sponsorship is also intentionally misleading

And as for your little snide assumption at the end... your misguided opinion does not make it fact

It was written to put together a bipartisan commission. The commission was to study a problem. How could that be amended 10 times?

Link was provided earlier detailing out each of the 10 amendments.... so I would ask your representatives and senators how and why it was amended 10 times

but nice try
 
BTW... still waiting for carBUNKaneer....










Yoo Hoo............

Post the amendments, and who voted for them, and who voted against them. We'll go from there. So far you've offered no evidence to support your claim.

Horseshit you lying motherfucker

I have ALREADY posted the link taking you directly to each of the amendments, who the sponsors were, etc

EPIC MEGA SUPER FAIL
 
Yes, since it was the basis of your attack on the OP. Either back it up or pack it up.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d111:./temp/~bdawy44:1[1-10]%28Amendments_For_H.J.RES.45%29&./temp/~bdjCjn

10 Amendments

Now... answer the question, asshole

Great link lolol

List File is not available (2a)

Looks like the link is funky, even though it is taken from the actual web page... you can drill down through the original page about the bill, to get to the amendments.. not hard to figure out how
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top