Text 42527, 177 rader
Skriven 2006-11-12 07:39:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av TORBJORN MOHN
Ärende: [1/2] Insults
=====================
 >>> Part 1 of 2...

-=> Quoting Torbjorn Mohn to Ross Cassell <=-

I have quoted almost the entire message for one reason and for 
one reason only:  Where are the indicators of the *authors* of 
the posters involved?  That is which ones are by Mr. Mohn and 
which ones are by Mr. Cassell????

##########################
 
 >>> Reagan and slick willy got by with Congress in the hands of the
 >>> opposition party, do you really see what happened as a magic light
 >>> switch?
 
 >> Many things will be changed in this country, and I expect to see many
 >> investigations of this administration as well.  It's too bad that Bush
 >> fired Rumsfeld.. I would have rather Rumsfeld was investigated for his
 >> actions as well... I wouldn't doubt that is why Rumsfeld was removed.
 
 > List the things that will be changed?
 
 > Do remember that when the Repubs took Congress in a far more dramatic and
 >convincing fashion in 1994, not too many of the changes they promised became
a
 > reality. Kicker is, they had a plan and a message, the democrats of 2006 do
 > not.
 
 >>> The bright spot here is Bush is gonna learn how to veto things..
 
 >> Sure, he has that option... but if the Republican party wants to
 >> survive this Bush won't be so quick to veto every measure.  Then
 >> again, don't forget, supenas like those that crushed the end of
 >> Clinton's term could well be applied to Bush.  Remember that period in
 >> US History, when the Republicans did indeed state that "no one was
 >> above the law".
 
 > As I explained to someone else in another forum...
 
 >A Bush VETO wont be damaging to the GOP under circumstances I predict would
be
 > the case.
 
 > It takes a 2/3's majority vote in both chambers to override a presidential
 > veto. The Democrats possess no such majority in either chamber.
 
 > Lets look at the house, if a bill initially was passed on the strength of
the
 > dem majority, with a spattering of repub votes, lets say 175 repubs voted
 > against it. We can assume similiarly narrow initial passage in the Senate.
 
 > It will take 292 Votes in the House to override a Veto, Dems dont hold that
 > many seats. 435 X .67
 
 >It will take 67 votes in the Senate, DEMS dont hold that many seats. 100 X
.67
 
 >A bill passed on the virtue of the DEM majority with a small splattering of
GO
 > votes, that gets vetoed and sent back to the originating chamber, well to
 > override would mean that those who initially voted against the bill the
first
 >time, would have to change their vote, so if 175 repubs initially rejected
the
 > bill the first time, do you thing 32 or more of them would change their vote
 > contrary to their first vote to sustain a override?
 
 > Not likely..
 
 > This is the gridlock we will see, its more evident when there is a weak
 > majority in the legislative body.
 
 > Your assertion can only hold true if the legislation passes Congress on veto
 >proof grounds, meaning it passed the house by 292 or more and the Senate by
67
 > or more. In this case if a bill lands on Bushes desk that he objects to, but
 >see's its literally bound to be passed anyway be a congressional veto
override
 > because of the initial votes the bill passed on, he would likely not sign
it,
 > and let the bill pass by default by not acting on it for 10 days. Of course
 > there is the pocket veto, if such a bill gets to him, like at the end of a
 >congressional session, he can not act on the bill and it would die naturally
i
 > there is no congress in session to act on the bill. (10 day rule applies)
 
 >>> If legislation passed congress down party lines, the existing
 >>> majority wont be able to override any such veto..
 
 >> Possible.
 
 > Not possible, very likely.
 
 >>> Assuming the VA Senate seat goes left, do you think the Repubs wont
 >>> pull the same obstructionist BS the Dems did, which stalled and
 >>> stymied many things the past 6 years?
 
 >> Perhaps.. but I think representatives in both houses now are VERY
 >> aware of their constituents feelings about the state of this country,
 >> civil rights and more.  I understand Nancy Pelosi, has a 100 hours
 >> plan to bring things back in the swing of things and I also bet she'll
 >> follow through with it.
 
 > I doubt the house in the next 2 years will be making much of a splash, the
 > Senate of the past 6 years has been quite a intestinal blockage and the DEM
 > majority is way weaker, like by only 1.
 
 > We will be seeing lotsa compromises coming through, no ramrodding and
nothing
 > radical.
 
 > There is a reason why the left lost ground in 00,02,04, see if you can
figure
 > that out?
 
 >>> That yours and Rons taxes will likely go up, sure!
 
 >> I guess you'd rather see that deficit continue to grow until it nearly
 >> bankrupts this nation? :)  Our taxes haven't gone down under Bush,
 >> btw. They've gone up..
 
 > The economy would not have rebounded the way it did if we had the left wing
 > inspired tax structure.
 
 >and yes, my taxes did go down, not by much, but no one has the right to tell
m
 > I dont need or need to appreciate the extra monies I see in my net take
home.
 
 > I'd rather have that money for myself, rather than see it go into the
welfare
 > system to fund irresponsible white trailer trash underage females become
baby
 > factories on the public dole.
 
 > Remember the tax cuts were primarily income based cuts, that means people
had
 > more to invest into the economy as in investing into business or by merely
 > being able to purchase more goods and services.. Tax revenue collected from
 > businesses has increased. But you knew that.
 
 > 9-11, the Airline bailout, Katrina werent for free events.
 
 >and nearly all of the taxcuts you bemoan were enacted prior to all above!!!
Bu
 > you knew that.
 
 > The number crunchers in academia said the recession began in March 2001,
 >recessions dont happen overnight much less in 45 days. Bush was only in
office
 >for that long, yet the entire was all his fault to listen to you all. It
wasnt
 >his fault, it was his responsibility to try to fix and he did it. The DJI is
a
 > all time highs, unemployment is way down, even besting Clintonian numbers.
 
 > I will concede that Bush should have vetoed a fair number of congressional
 >spending bills, but with everything that has happened, we still would have
had
 > a deficit, even if he had been more veto concious.
 
 >>>> Democrats, they are _progressive_ Democrats.  Read Chris Bowers
 >>>> comments on mydd.com, or on dailykos.com.
 
 >>> Progressive... C'mon Janis, thats just a word...
 >>> The point is, you can use a million different descriptive words that
 >>> denote if not describe the same thing.
 
 >> No, the point is that those elected are not conservatives.  That is
 >> what's important here.
 

 >>> Continued to next message...

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)