Re: Why would Anyone Expect Obama to Comprehend Basic Economics >>OR<< Sell $1.00 Lotto tickets for President and the winner runs the NATION
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 8:31�pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>dog.com> wrote:
>> On 12/16/2009 5:45 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
>> >news:tw9Wm.2750$2A7....@newsfe07.iad...
>> >> On 12/16/2009 1:04 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>> >>> "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in
>> >>> messagenews:mo7ii559vmm08gb22...@4ax.com...
>> >>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:22:58 -0800 (PST), wolfagain
>> >>>> <w...@provide.net>
>> >>>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Any one who spends over $100 Million to secure a job that pays
>> >>>>> $400
>> >>>>> thousand a year is NOT to be trusted!
>>
>> >>>> Gee, and when did the scales fall from your eyes, and you suddenly
>> >>>> realized that election by bribery probably wasn't a very good
>> >>>> idea?
>> >>> ..
>> >>> ..
>> >>> Republicans have opposed real campaign finance reform for years.
>> >>> Nothing new here.
>>
>> >> Sell $1.00 Lotto tickets for President and the winner runs the
>> >> NATION.
>> >> I'll bet the Participation will be higher than the participation in
>> >> elections now.
>> >> That's REAL "campaign finance reform"
>> > So, you still have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
>>
>> I'm serious..... �weren't you?
>>
>> If the Lotto winner sucks then impeach him/her.
>>
>That would never work. All he would have to do is hire whomever one
>party wanted, and do whatever that party told him to do.
>
>Hell, we couldn't even manage to impeach Bush, and that should have
>been a slam dunk.
>
Let's have a peek at Shook's knowledge of how the Congress works...
"By the way, you're forgetting something else. The House bill has
already passed, and it has a public option in it. The two bills will
have to be reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And
they can't filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass."
--Milt Shook Tue, 15 Dec 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b81764c6712aa6b5?
Canyon Note: The process of combining the house and Senate Bills
is very different from the no-fillibuster reconciliation process.
Milt
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:39:55 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>
> Canyon Note: The process of combining the house and Senate Bills
> is very different from the no-fillibuster reconciliation process.
I know this, you fucking idiot. I wrote all about the reconciliation
process extensively yesterday.
I'm talking about a conference bill. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with
the process. May I enlighten you?
The House passed a bill. Then the Senate passes a bill, but they're
not the same. They have to be the same in order to go to the
President's desk. So, the House and Senate form a Conference
Committee, that Committee can be any size and include any members of
bother bodies, negotiates and then issues a conference report. The
conference report goes to both bodies where it is debated and amended
and can be passed. If it is filibustered, they can call another
conference and come up with another report. Once the conference report
is passed, however, a conference bill is crafted and that bill goes
straight to the floor of both bodies; it can technically be
filibustered, but that would be practically unprecedented, and would
have to be a traditional filibuster, not just a threat. And there are
no amendments, which means It passes with 51 votes. (Actually, in this
case, 50, because we know Biden will break a tie.) Of course, blue
dogs will be part of the conference committee, so it's unlikely anyone
will uphold such a filibuster by that point.
Face it; Republicans are out of bullets, and they're left with
throwing the gun. And they throw like girls besides.
You'd think someone so sure of himself would at least look something
up before he declared someone else "stupid."
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 9:14�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
<Chuckle> Apparently you didn't know it when you posted the nonsense
above about how the simple process of combining the Senate and House
bills would start the no-filibuster reconsciliation process..
Apparently, when I first brought that to your attention you went off
and managed to figure it out..
I won't charge you for the schooling, Milt...
Milt
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:00:36 -0800 (PST), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
Check the dates on the article and the post, jagoff. I didn't use the
word "reconciliation," fucktard; I used the word "reconcile." You'll
also note that the subject of my article, and the complete description
of reconciliation, which says nothing about the House at all. You saw
the word "reconcile" and thought I was talking about "reconciliation."
I did get one thing slightly wrong, in that it is possible to
filibuster a conference bill. But all that does is force another
conference; it doesn't kill the bill.
>
> Apparently, when I first brought that to your attention you went off
> and managed to figure it out..
>
> I won't charge you for the schooling, Milt...
Back in the dustbin with your sorry ass. You don't teach anyone
anything, except how to bluster.
Steve
wrote:
>On Dec 16, 10:28�pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
...and you claimed that it couldn't be filibustered, you pathetic
dumbass...
>also note that the subject of my article, and the complete description
>of reconciliation,
<LOL> I'm not going to bother wiyth your article, dummy, since it was
the result of you realizing that you didn't have a clue.
>which says nothing about the House at all. You saw
>the word "reconcile" and thought I was talking about "reconciliation."
Actually, I saw your use of the following stupidity: The two bills
will
have to be reconciled before it even makes it to Obama's desk. And
they can't filibuster that one; it will only need 51 votes to pass."
--Milt Shook Tue, 15 Dec 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b81764c6712aa6b5?
>I did get one thing slightly wrong, in that it is possible to
>filibuster a conference bill.
<LOL> Slightly wrong???? You got it completely wrong, you ignorant
fool. You told Jamieson not to worry about his not liking the Senate
bill because the result of combining the House and Senate Bill
couldn't be filibustered.....
.....and the big, fat moron from Mt Shasta said; "DUH, oh yeah." He's
still waiting for that to happen...
> But all that does is force another
>conference; it doesn't kill the bill.
...and they can conferfence it from now until hell freezes over and it
won't make it pass...
>> Apparently, when I first brought that to your attention you went off
>> and managed to figure it out.. � � �
>>
>> I won't charge you for the schooling, Milt...
>
>Back in the dustbin with your sorry ass. You don't teach anyone
>anything, except how to bluster.
Actually, I schooled your dumb ass about it and then you went off and
managed to research the process and write some article to try to make
people believe that you knew about it...
I'm suprised that you didn't get schooled about Reconciliation <LOL>
back when you were a Congressional Page, Milt.
Oh wait, you fabricated that story, didn't you?