Boy Wonder didn't READ the bill, let alone write it!
Posted By: hmm on 2009-02-21
In Reply to: Did you notice....(sm) - Just the big bad
##
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
But the President didn't write the stimulus bill.
So how is it meant to be him?
They need to write a better bill
This is a mute point now, because the bill was vetoed by the Pres.and for good reason. Why do we have to accept bad bills? This was a poorly written bill, and that's the reason it was vetoed. Why all the vagueness? $83,000 per year is hardly poverty level. If this bill was truly going to help poor kids then write it that way. I don't understand why it has to be so vague. To me it reeks of dishonesty and pork.
Write a good understandable bill...what's the problem with that?
I know you didn't write it. sm
Another obvious glaring error. Bill Clinton. Not on the list.
Relax, I didn't write it.
It was simply for amusement and speculation, not of scientific value.
i didn't write that - shows what you don't know
x
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
um tara, she didn't write the article (piglet)...sm
what is up with you? Take your nasty pill today? As a newbie to this particular board (liberals) - I'm offended to read your waste-of-bandwidth attacks/reactions. Hope the rest of the year 2008 is better for you than the first couple of days appear to be. 
And this bailout bill? Didn't you state
below it was the 94 dem votes they needed and didn't get?
Read The Actual Bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/text
If you're so concerned, one would think you'd actually read the bill as written, rather than rely on someone else with a clear agenda to do your interpreting for you.
Gimme a break.
...and now we shall read the climate bill...
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/22346245/speed-reading.htm
I just read the draft of the bill on line...
the lenders are getting the bailout all right, but there are provisions in the bill about letting people in foreclosure get "modifications" so they can keep their houses. We are essentially buying the bad mortgages from the lenders, we the taxpayers. And then those folks who got those mortgages they really didn't qualify for and could not afford to begin with...can try to pay it back, which in and of itself is not a bad thing...however, the rub is the "modifications." I don't disagree with modifying the interest rate to the average others are paying...but there is a thing there that says "reduction of loan principal" as one of the options. I think that is going too far. I think they should have to pay back every dime they borrowed no matter how long it takes...becaue of they don't, WE have to. Sigh.
I read that as righteous indignation on Bill's part.
Well, clearly you didn't read...sm
About how the blog came about, so you've missed the point. (Why am I not surprised?)
It's a blog. It's not meant to be unbiased, any more than a blog called something like "welovelovelovesarahpalin!" would be unbiased. BTW, I'm sure there's a blog like that out there somewhere, which you are free to post the url for - for her fans. (You're probably feverishly searching for it right now, come to think of it. Just ask sam, she probably has a dozen right at her fingertips. LOL) And if you do post something like that, I will not feel the need to say "That's biased!" if it's a blog.
Either side, it's women expressing their opinion, and I think that's a good thing, to get involved.
I didn't say I wasn't going to read it, gt. sm
Try and get some rest, honey. Obviously you are just not thinking clearly right now. Come back when you are thinking right. Buh-bye
Perhaps you didn't READ my post
I said -- keep it the hell out of politics.
You're welcome to claim whomever you'd like as your Saviour in the privacy of your own home and the community of your own church.
You didn't read my post
I was referring to people I talk to, as I stated. I don't generally talk to Churchill or Chomsky. In fact, I don't even pay much attention to them, nor should you. Just as I don't pay much if any attention to crazy right-wingers. Just common sense.
Didn't you read this part?
"The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States."
Their system costs less per capita than our system. You bring up a good point about the doctors making less money, but should our doctors' main objective be getting rich or providing excellent care to patients? I'm sure many doctors would be happy to be able to help patients without having to beg insurance companies to cover the only cholesterol medications to help someone with severe CAD or not having to write letters pleading with insurance to cover a much-needed MRI or surgery. I transcribe letters like this all the time. Doctors are constantly taking time out of their day (and money out of their pockets) to jump through insurance companies' hoops. They are also often frustrated by patients with no insurance who refuse to pay for a potentially life-saving echocardiogram or colonoscopy. They might be happy with lower paychecks if they knew they could just go to work and help patients without having to stress about whether or not their patients can afford the medical help they need. I know some doctors are probably in it mostly for the money, but that is not the kind of doctor I want to go to!
However, I want to find out more about how France transitioned into their current program, as I imagine here it would be quite difficult to make so many changes. I believe we can do it eventually though, and anything this important is worth the effort. I do think we can learn a lot from their system though, because they have not done away with private health insurance and choices, and I think that system would be much easier for Americans to swallow.
Didn't I just read your this line in another
xx
you didn't read it did you. I'm a conservative
x
There ya go - just another example you didn't actually read the article
If you read the article you would know the article talked about where Obama stands on issues.
Plain and simple truth. But guess that is kind of hard for some to understand.
Actually, you didn't read the post then
Didn't say she was a liar. There is a difference with calling someone a liar and saying you don't believe them.
She over did it with the drama. Sure maybe she donated to charities on her own, but all the drama about contributing to the greater care, organizing for charity, painted and nailing carpeting in "poverty stricken homes" as her "gift to her children" oh yes, all while she didn't have a pot to you know what in, all while making only 5.30 an hour. And on top of all that she moved in with her parents to take care of her dying father while herself working full-time as a supervisor several states away (wow what a commute each day that must have been). On and on an on an on. Could it have happened? Sure anything could happen. Do I believe it personally? Not in my lifetime. But that's not saying it didn't happen. Just sounds like she should be awarded the model citizen of the century award.
BTW - there is a clear difference between saying you don't believe someone and them attacking you personally.
So I'd boo-hoo on yourself.
I didn't bash anyone...and I read them all
I think that you are unfairly bashing the poor man. Diagree with his politics--fine--that's what the board is for, but what is with the personal attacks. If you don't like the words he uses, that's okay, but why make a big deal out of it. If he talks over your head, I am sure that he didn't mean to. I don't find what he writes hard to understand. I simply disagree with tons of people attacking him on a personal level--or you for that matter. I did not attack anyone personally, nor would I. I did READ all the posts and did give my comment. I stand by it.
You obviously didn't really read her post...what's happened
You used to be a pretty straightforward poster even though we were often at odds. Now you seem nasty.
I read that entire article and I still didn't see where it said sm
U.S. military was protecting the Hezbollah supporters. Am I really missing it?
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Figures....sm
That's why I usually use non-Fox links, so the demmies will "try" to read with open mind....lol....or maybe not.....whatever.....ciao
Guess you didn't read this part . . .
From Wall Street Journal and other sites:
"At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal," Mr. Burton said in an email to reporters. "At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."
McCain released statement minutes after responding to Obama.
Evidently you didn't read the package.
Most of the money will not go to the people. So far, I have not come across anything that deals with foreclosures, etc. The item I posted last night from our local newspaper is the so-called stimulus package that will help foreclosures.
Read the doggone bill that they are trying to pass, please. Then you may see the light of day.
Evidently you didn't read the post....
no one said a black person wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama (HELLO.....Steele, etc., etc.).
Apparently you didn't read closely enough..........sm
My point was that by replacing the food stamp program with the commodity program, which does not allow for "luxury" foods like rib-eye, etc., perhaps more people would be willing to get off the welfare wagon and go back to work.
Where in the heck did you come up with you idea?
I didn't bother to read your post....
I couldn't get past your heading "staying on the subject" .... the only "subject" is you..... Obama's "subject". You probably don't get that either! LOL
Nope, didn't think you'd read my message
Let me repeat....
Actually Cavuto didn't say Fox News. He said Fox.
Murdock and Fox have been in the business since 1985.
I watched the videos.
It's really too bad you didn't take the time to read the entire transcript
of what William Bennett said, Democrat. But I am not surprised.
Wow! I read the results, but didn't know the nay sayers were repugs...sm
I mean repubs. Interesting.
Didn't read your response before I wrote mine....
lol. Good post :)
I guess we didn't know it was a joke...if you go back and read (sm)
you said you have a very strong opinion and you keep it to yourself...which sounded like you were saying that is what we should all be doing too. But the point in response to you was that the board is for political opinions to be expressed and if it bothers anyone, they don't have to come on here. I am sorry you got your feelings hurt though. I am sure it was just a communication problem.
You didn't read the AP news story on Ogden?
I posted it below in a post yesterday.
you must be referring to the previous admin. - GW didn't like to read much......
he did miss that memo about an impending attack on our country using our own private airlines..........Boy wonder? Must be referring to his super hero underwear.
You evidently didn't read my post - it was not a question
of if you think he's done harm. He has, it's a fact and no matter how much you want to cover it up you can't. You think bowing to our enemy, telling other countries we are selfish, and that we don't want our jobs so they can have them, tripling our deficit (nothing Bush had to do with -sorry can't pull that crap anymore), lining the pockets of his rich friends and CEOs, filling his cabinet with unqualified crooks and thieves, and the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the first 90 days. So the question was how many more years will it take to undo the harm. You can keep drinking the kool-aid thinking socialistm/communism is fine. It is not. Even the other countries keep telling him - "Don't go there, it is not a path you want to take", while other country leaders who are telling him not to go there are saying "why aren't you listening to us. We've been there and done that and it doesn't work".
Hence, how many more years will it take to undo the harm he has already done (and its only been less than 90 days). My guess is at least 2. It's going to be hard once he's out of office, but I do have faith the country will bounce back as long as we have some decent politicians in the office and take congress out from the control of the crats.
It's obvious you didn't read a DARN thing.....
First of all, real history is not taught in college either.... unless you are soooo lucky as to get a professor who actually LOVES history and really DID his/her homework.
My son is a history/political major and LOVES history... and I can assure you, he would put history teachers to shame in what they "think" they know.... the crap the government puts in their history books is all they are ALLOWED to teach in our public "government ran" schools!
Our history IS politics....where have you been? Teaching our kids politics IS teaching them history.... WOW! Glad my son is teaching them and not you!
This guy has been teaching for 19 years with NO complaints about his informative web site.... the parents have ALWAYS like it!
Only ONE person complained......ONE!!! No doubt a liberal jackarse who has NO loyalty or love for this country whatsoever.... another lost soul.
This guy had an introductory video where he says he truly wanted his kids to LOVE America.........what the heck is wrong with that?
He was told to remove that video because everyone "did not love America"..... huh? Then I suppose they can sit on their sorry sad butts and hate everything....who cares? This guy did nothing wrong but encourage students to love their country but of course, you WOULD have something wrong with that! Geesh!
Then you didn't read the article on the conservative board. nuff said.
backwards, you didn't read the post, just the headline PAY ATTENTION
loser
Guess you didn't read the post I made from a few days ago.
Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.
Did you read that report? Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.
Sorry, but this post does not hold water IMHO.
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.
You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.
How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?
BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.
But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...
O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.
MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?
You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.
O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.
But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?
All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?
MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.
O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.
MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.
O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...
MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.
In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.
We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...
O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.
MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...
O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.
MAHER: Whatever it costs.
O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?
MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.
O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.
MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.
O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.
MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.
O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.
MAHER: Thank you.
O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.
MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.
O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?
MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?
O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.
MAHER: Yes.
O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.
But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.
There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.
I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.
MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.
O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.
Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?
MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.
O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.
Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.
MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.
O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.
Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.
Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.
It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Deny, deny, deny. Didn't work for Bill either. (nm)
nm
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
You need to write some more posts
on this board because you really seem to know what you are talking about. Maybe you can explain the popular vote versus the electorial vote to some of the people in posts further up that don't believe thier votes count.
Can't you still write in your vote for someone else?
because they don't like either candidate. Actually, I'm in that boat right now. I don't like either one of them. OTOH, I want to vote because it's my one chance to be "heard," even though I largely agree that the media and politicians have already chosen a president for us (look at Ron Paul--he was able to garner such a large following online where the media couldn't control the people that I think they were actually worried he'd throw a kink in their plan so he was basically shut out in the media). If they weren't trying to control our vote, why else do they shut out any coverage on certain candidates and cover every word said by others? Why wouldn't they just cover all equally and fairly? I'm looking into whether I can still write in a candidate other than the 2 yahoos the current media has chosen for us. Wouldn't it be wild if everyone wrote in someone else and that person won out over both of them? LOL I know, it's a dream, but still, it'd be really cool if that happened and showed the media and politicans of this country that USA is still run BY THE PEOPLE!
What possible write-in candidate has all the necessary
exists, then why were they not nominated?
|
