While you're all outraged about the bailout... - Page 3

xoxoxoBruce · 03-28-2009, 05:41 AM

Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.

TheMercenary · 03-28-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.

Your charaterization is bull shit.

Happy Monkey · 03-28-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that.

Merc's got his own definition of "transparent" that I'm pretty sure he's not going to let any of us know.

TGRR · 03-28-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?

Because it isn't true.

Happy Monkey · 03-27-2009, 10:47 AM

Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!

TheMercenary · 03-27-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past!

You're right! With the even less tranparency than under Bush!

Happy Monkey · 03-27-2009, 10:56 AM

How do filibusters affect transparency?

TheMercenary · 03-27-2009, 10:57 AM

What filibuster?

Happy Monkey · 03-27-2009, 11:02 AM

The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.

Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass. It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement.

TheMercenary · 03-27-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes.

Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass.

Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.

Quote:

It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement.

Your opinion.

Happy Monkey · 03-27-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not for things that cost 600 billion dollars and radically change the way business is done in this country.

Cite.

TheMercenary · 03-27-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Cite.

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=550052&postcount=32

03-27-2009, 11:21 AM

The budget proposal does not "ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years."

It proposes a $650b reserve fund over 10 years (half through anticipated savings in the outyears) and both the House and Senate have seen the proposal, will debate it and have opportunities to offer amendments.

So where is the ramrod?

Undertoad · 03-27-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)

It was termed "the nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, but not on the tax cuts.

03-27-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It was termed "the nuclear option" and they used it on Republican judicial nominees, not on the tax cuts.

Nope...its not the same thing as the so called "nuclear option"

The Republicans in 2003 used the "reconciliation" procedure to avoid the 60 vote threshold.

03-28-2009, 05:41 AM	#1
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Because you're lying about the process not being transparent. You may not like it but it is transparent. Everybody and their fucking brother knows what is going on, and you can't get more transparent than that. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-27-2009, 10:47 AM	#5
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Amazing! Requiring only 51 votes to pass? It's like we're living ten years in the past! __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-27-2009, 10:56 AM	#7
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	How do filibusters affect transparency? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-27-2009, 10:57 AM	#8
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	What filibuster? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-27-2009, 11:02 AM	#9
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	The filibuster that would have otherwise caused it to take 60 votes. Laws are supposed to take 51 votes to pass. It's only the ridiculous overuse of the filibuster that has made 60 votes a de facto requirement. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-27-2009, 11:21 AM	#13
Redux Guest Posts: n/a	The budget proposal does not "ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years." It proposes a $650b reserve fund over 10 years (half through anticipated savings in the outyears) and both the House and Senate have seen the proposal, will debate it and have opportunities to offer amendments. So where is the ramrod?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)