They were FOR it before they were AGAINST it.

[rdean]

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.

 

[DiamondDave]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

 

[Oldandtired]

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.

Is it that you are spinning....or are you truly naive to how congress works.

People sponsor bills all the time....and once it is doctored, changed...and most importantly....earmarks and pork for special interests thrown in, many who sponsored the original bill will vote against it.

It is not unusual...happens to both sides. Has NEVER been presented as something strange...it is quite common actually.

yet...

MSNBC made a big deal about it.

I wonder why that is.

 

[Claudette]

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.

Is it that you are spinning....or are you truly naive to how congress works.

People sponsor bills all the time....and once it is doctored, changed...and most importantly....earmarks and pork for special interests thrown in, many who sponsored the original bill will vote against it.

It is not unusual...happens to both sides. Has NEVER been presented as something strange...it is quite common actually.

yet...

MSNBC made a big deal about it.

I wonder why that is.

You have to wonder??? Really?? LOL

 

[Oldandtired]

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.

Is it that you are spinning....or are you truly naive to how congress works.

People sponsor bills all the time....and once it is doctored, changed...and most importantly....earmarks and pork for special interests thrown in, many who sponsored the original bill will vote against it.

It is not unusual...happens to both sides. Has NEVER been presented as something strange...it is quite common actually.

yet...

MSNBC made a big deal about it.

I wonder why that is.

You have to wonder??? Really?? LOL

Is it that MSNBC is naive to how congress works

OR

DO they realize how naive their audience is...so they can make news where news doesnt exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Why don't you tell us what has changed? ...so we won't have to suspect that you're pretending to know something you don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Is it that you are spinning....or are you truly naive to how congress works.

People sponsor bills all the time....and once it is doctored, changed...and most importantly....earmarks and pork for special interests thrown in, many who sponsored the original bill will vote against it.

It is not unusual...happens to both sides. Has NEVER been presented as something strange...it is quite common actually.

yet...

MSNBC made a big deal about it.

I wonder why that is.

So I guess we were right - some of us - who knew that the rightwingers were ignorant to make a big deal out of John Kerry being for it before he was against it, i.e., the 87 billion dollar funding bill.

 

[Oldandtired]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Why don't you tell us what has changed? ...so we won't have to suspect that you're pretending to know something you don't.

Quite simple....EVERY bill changes....and EVRY bill has supporters and sponsors that bow out after the changes are made.

It is NOT NEWS...it is SOP for congress.

Only MSNBC made it news.

Sadly...it is news to you. Arte you new to the political scene?

I guess you must be....or your media does not inform you. One or the other.

 

[Oldandtired]

[
Is it that you are spinning....or are you truly naive to how congress works.

People sponsor bills all the time....and once it is doctored, changed...and most importantly....earmarks and pork for special interests thrown in, many who sponsored the original bill will vote against it.

It is not unusual...happens to both sides. Has NEVER been presented as something strange...it is quite common actually.

yet...

MSNBC made a big deal about it.

I wonder why that is.

So I guess we were right - some of us - who knew that the rightwingers were ignorant to make a big deal out of John Kerry being for it before he was against it, i.e., the 87 billion dollar funding bill.

Yep...those that made a big deal tut of the action of Kerry were right wingers that would say anything to knock a dem.
However, most of us simply made fun of how silly he sounded saying it...not the action itself.
If he hads said "I was for it before the changees were made, and I was not able to support the changes", no one would have said a word.

But he didnt...he simply said "I was for it before I was against it"...and that sounded silly.

But nice spin of the facts...I expect no less of you.

 

[DiamondDave]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Why don't you tell us what has changed? ...so we won't have to suspect that you're pretending to know something you don't.

So it is my burden to list all of what has changed???

You are actually defending the assumption and pure sloganeering of the idiot rdean....??? The little sniveler made a misleading post in an attempt to portray the changing of support, as if the bill/effort had not changed.... and you defend that crap??

You're about as deep as a snail trail as well

Do you doubt that the bill has changed from the complete content that it had when these people supported or co-sponsored it?? Is this your contention??

 

[midcan5]

If one thing is clear, the republicans will not engage in any aspect of bipartisanship. I have no idea why the Obama administration does not come out and just say that over and over again. The general public only hears the negative and fails to hear or maybe understand the context in which politics operates today.

Republicans suck at governance, that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt; they excel at screaming nonsense from the bleachers, that is their specialty. That the nonsense has followers should not surprise anyone, stupidity is often contagious check out history sometime.



"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

 

[Oldandtired]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Why don't you tell us what has changed? ...so we won't have to suspect that you're pretending to know something you don't.

In this new world of TRANSPARECNY that we were promised, unfortunately we can not as we were not afforded the right to see the roiginal bill NOR the revised bill.

So we were forced to apply our basic uynderstanding of how a congressional debate works realizing that things must have changed...seeing as ALL proposed bills change during debate.

Were you not aware of this?



How is it that you feel you can debate on an equal par with people when you are so naive as to how congress works?

 

[Oldandtired]

If one thing is clear, the republicans will not engage in any aspect of bipartisanship. I have no idea why the Obama administration does not come out and just say that over and over again. The general public only hears the negative and fails to hear or maybe understand the context in which politics operates today.

Republicans suck at governance, that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt; they excel at screaming nonsense from the bleachers, that is their specialty. That the nonsense has followers should not surprise anyone, stupidity is often contagious check out history sometime.



"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

So in other words, you, too, are naive as to how a congressional debate works.

Well, once again your credibility is severly compromised.

Republicans present their draft opf the healthcare bill and the dems (pelosi) says NO to even dsicussing thewir ideas......so the REPUBLICANS are not acting bipartisan.

Sure...that makes a lot of sense.

 

[DiamondDave]

Still waiting for carBUNKineer to answer the question....

Somehow I think he is a little upset about his attempt at deflection failing....

And BTW, nimrod, yes, I do have a link to the 10 times the bill was amended...

 

[DiamondDave]

If one thing is clear, the republicans will not engage in any aspect of bipartisanship. I have no idea why the Obama administration does not come out and just say that over and over again. The general public only hears the negative and fails to hear or maybe understand the context in which politics operates today.

Republicans suck at governance, that they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt; they excel at screaming nonsense from the bleachers, that is their specialty. That the nonsense has followers should not surprise anyone, stupidity is often contagious check out history sometime.



"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

Hope

Change

Now what was that about screaming nonsense?? What was that about stupidity being contagious?? I think you should make a doctor's appointment

Oh... and please cite your 'proof' that REPs have no ability to govern...

 

[kwc57]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Wasn't that John Kerry's argument that he was so roundly laughed at over?

 

[jillian]

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.

Scarborough was taking huge shots at them for that this morning. It was like, really??? you voted against THIS??? Are you nuts?

And yes, they are. That's what the party of "no" does. Heaven forbid they act like they don't believe in that whole "ihopehefails" thing that rushbo told them to do.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Scarborough was taking huge shots at them for that this morning. It was like, really??? you voted against THIS??? Are you nuts?

And yes, they are. That's what the party of "no" does. Heaven forbid they act like they don't believe in that whole "ihopehefails" thing that rushbo told them to do.

Jill... are you also overlooking that what he first supported and what he eventually voted against are not exactly the same???

 

[NYcarbineer]

And we'll simply take it that you have not looked into what has changed from what they originally sponsored or supported, in terms of what they are against now....

You're no deeper than a snail trail

Why don't you tell us what has changed? ...so we won't have to suspect that you're pretending to know something you don't.

So it is my burden to list all of what has changed???

?

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

 

[DiamondDave]

Why don't you tell us what has changed? ...so we won't have to suspect that you're pretending to know something you don't.

So it is my burden to list all of what has changed???

?

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