The Obama administration proposed today to set up a new bright and shiney government agency to "study and report on the changing climate." This new agency will be set up and run by the NOAA... But God knows they haven't been skewing their research findings to make sure they get more and more and more government funding... Lord no, that would be lunacy! Just look how credible all the evidence that was presented at the U.N. confrence in Copenhagen... Such stand up people. After all the head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, just published a raunchy sex novel with help promoting it from BP, India's largest oil and gas producer... H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
The Obama administration proposed today to set up a new bright and shiney government agency to "study and report on the changing climate." This new agency will be set up and run by the NOAA... But God knows they haven't been skewing their research findings to make sure they get more and more and more government funding... Lord no, that would be lunacy! Just look how credible all the evidence that was presented at the U.N. confrence in Copenhagen... Such stand up people. After all the head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, just published a raunchy sex novel with help promoting it from BP, India's largest oil and gas producer... H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E
We already have dozens of agencies, private and government alike, that monitor and track the changing climate!!! WTF!!! .gov is such a cancer.
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the health care package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most disgraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parliamentary procedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
The "slaughter rule" is where there is never an actual vote on the bill. Pelosi as speaker of the house deems the bill to have been passed simply because it was passed in the senate, then the house never takes a vote on it. Done deal, the bill goes to the President's desk, he signs it, then we are stuck with whatever the legislation is at the time. Nancy Pelosi is proposing this as a way to force through the health care reform bill so she doesn't have to have the votes on it.
I know you said it earlier Puro, but do want to point out that this form of "slaughter rule" otherwise known as 'Reconciliation' has been used for decades in Washington and if people care to look it is a tactic long used by the right wing nuts to get things passed as well, not a new idea brought about by Pelosi (why does she blink so d@mn much btw?)
Ok, at this point it really doesn't even matter if we agree or not with the healthcare package, ( which we now have no clue what it even says) this slaughter rule that has been threatened and suggested by Pelosi, is unconstitutional and probably the most discraceful way to pass any legislation. It doesn't matter which party uses it, this is wrong. It's not a constitutional tactic, it's a parlimentary proceedure rule that goes against everything our government was founded upon.
Please forgive my ignorance but what are you talking about? What is the "slaughter rule"?
The "slaughter rule" is where there is never an actual vote on the bill. Pelosi as speaker of the house deems the bill to have been passed simply because it was passed in the senate, then the house never takes a vote on it. Done deal, the bill goes to the President's desk, he signs it, then we are stuck with whatever the legislation is at the time. Nancy Pelosi is proposing this as a way to force through the health care reform bill so she doesn't have to have the votes on it.
Yeah, as informed as you are, you should know that this rule has been used mostly by your republican friends. I really think you should stop watching fox news buddy. I do agree this health bill is crap though. But it will give people coverage that don't have it and fix some things. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/13/self-executing-rule/
This new agency will be set up and run by the NOAA... But God knows they haven't been skewing their research findings to make sure they get more and more and more government funding...
You know what goverment agency skews their findings more than anyone else in order to gain more income??? The one I work for, the United States Military. I mean, it's not even hidden. Everyone who has ever served knows that if you don't use your full budget, you'll get your budget cut next year. So just before October, every Chief gets a new desk and a new chair, and a new computer, and a new whatever else they can think of that will bring the spending up to par. Happens every year. It's actually pretty sad too because there are certainly parts of our armed forces that could use the funding more than anyone and they end up going without because some bigd1ck behind a desk is playing the numbers.
I know you said it earlier Puro, but do want to point out that this form of "slaughter rule" otherwise known as 'Reconciliation' has been used for decades in Washington and if people care to look it is a tactic long used by the right wing nuts to get things passed as well, not a new idea brought about by Pelosi (why does she blink so d@mn much btw?)
Actually Vulch (your name doesn't shorten well... Just doesn't sound right. haha) The Slaughter Rule is not known as reconciliation. The Slaughter rule is one tactic to accomplish reconciliation, but there are other ways as well that do not go against our founding documents. As I said, it is wrong when used by both sides, but it has never been used to push such sweeping legislation that will change one sixth of our economy.
I know you said it earlier Puro, but do want to point out that this form of "slaughter rule" otherwise known as 'Reconciliation' has been used for decades in Washington and if people care to look it is a tactic long used by the right wing nuts to get things passed as well, not a new idea brought about by Pelosi (why does she blink so d@mn much btw?)
Actually Vulch (your name doesn't shorten well... Just doesn't sound right. haha) The Slaughter Rule is not known as reconciliation. The Slaughter rule is one tactic to accomplish reconciliation, but there are other ways as well that do not go against our founding documents. As I said, it is wrong when used by both sides, but it has never been used to push such sweeping legislation that will change one sixth of our economy.
Yep, the Slaughter Rule is not the same debate as Reconciliation (or Wreckonciliation as it is now dubbed, lol). They aren't even voting. Reconciliation was typically used as a vote in order to not need a 60% super majority to pass funding bills. But you still had to vote. The reason they are attempting to use the Slaughter rule is so they don't have to vote. So unbelievably unconstitutional.
lol. My current facebook status reads; "I can't believe Obama/friends are claiming the $940B health care bill is going to reduce the deficite in 10 years. Does anyone actually believe this garbage? What kind of ignorant people do they think we are that we would believe something so ridiculous?"
Down-right scary regarding SS. It's funny - from the time I was very young, I never assumed I would ever be getting any of that back. I remember my parents explaining to me what SS was and how the program was going to fail before I got to retirement age anyway. Heh.
Wow... Resurrection of an oldie here! LoL So who is the douchebag in question if not me? Allllthough it is a bit ironic that I return from a bit of a sabbatical from the forums last night and you post this today.... Hmmmm....
Comments