Posted on 05/31/2005 6:20:55 AM PDT by alwaysrepublican
President Bush to Hold White House Press Conference at 10 a.m.
All votes on underlying matters are brought up by unanimous consent or cloture. It is not in order for a motion to move the question.
There is no such thing as a "snap vote."
Some votes, such as on motions to table, motions to adjourn, etc. are not contentious and just happen. Other votes are contentions, but come up in the context of the day's business - but even those are announced and known to all Senators in advance. See, e.g., a motion to postpone indefinitely the vote on Paez's nomination, held just before the vote on the nomination itself. The motion to postpone was discussed a day or two ahead of the vote on the nomination, and was filed the same day the vote on the nomination was taken. So, it was contentious, but no surprize, and did not come "from the leader's office."
As noted above, votes on the underlying matter are scheduled by unanimous consent. Both Frist and Reid agree to the time.
I started at the end of the thread & read backwards, so I don't know what else has happened.
Why on EARTH would he pick Villepin? Does he not realize that DV is half the reason we hate the French, and Chirac himself is the other half? They were just whimpering about their wine exports being down. I'll go back to buying French wine when Chirac is voted out of office (resigning isn't good enough, the country has to repudiate him), but if Villepin's in, I'll wait till they're both gone.
Christmas before last, we were in the wine store, loading up for the holidays, and I was in the dessert wine section. I love dessert wine, and I was looking at the descriptions of some French ones I hadn't tried, and called over to hubby, "are we buying French wine again yet?" to which his response was "No! The French still suck." I caught the glare from the store manager behind him who was setting up for the Beaujolais Nouveau tasting they were about to hold. NOT a happy camper.
Of all the enemies we have in the world, the most dangerous ones are in the Senate, the House, and the propaganda wing of the democrat party, the mainstream media.
The Senate, in particular, is just over ninety percent hangable traitors.
The rest are new.
You got that right.
Nope, no political bias at CNN. Can you imagine them ever saying something like this about the Clintons?
At any rate, Musharraff is hanging by a thread in Pak - if we lose him - we lose Pak to the terrorists in a new york second. We just cannot openly invade Pak. Don't you think there are millions of Islamists who would hide Osama from us? It may be that the best we can do is continue to break down his networks and keep him on the run. In essence, we are getting Osama.
If you really believe that, then you must not be a Republican. Or, did I misunderstand you? I have never heard anyone say such a thing, so please forgive my confusion.
Bush stated this war is not about one person. Even if we get Osama, the war is not over..
Ah don't remind us. The blood on that certain president hands is his legacy in my book.
Had to.. A lot of people seem to have forget about certain details in why OBL is still on the run..
Well, let's just say it's been a very long time since you addressed anything other than border control? Out of all the interesting topics on FR - you seem to want to turn them all into the border. And I am not saying that is not important but you seem to be a one topic poster and I think that is what the other poster was referring to.
yea, well try looking as far back as TODAY!
hellooooooo
Conservatism and republicans have only the chancest of aquaintences. I've never claimed to be a republican. Sadly, I have voted for them at times.
You've been here a while. Dig through the archives and educate yourself.
Start with the one thing that almost all of them have in common.
Chinazi cash lining their pockets. From Clinton to Starr, this is the most widespread of treasonous activities.
Follow the trail of a pair of cast-off former Soviet assets and their corrupting journey from Little Rock to the White House. Realization will dawn upon you that nobody could do so much without the help of both parties.
You will find more treason, theft, fraud, rape, bribery, extortion and murder than you can get your head around.
What is amazing is how so many here have read little beyond the paralytic Day in the Life threads and have no idea of the incredible wealth of knowledge in the Archives and at sister sites like Alamo Girl and others. (Backhoe, Sabertooth, if he still exists.)
If you can stomach the tales of the Hydra you will have your eyes opened so wide they'll never shut again.
But most likely, you will dismiss me as kook and go back to chatting with the henhouse over live presser threads.
Do as you will.
That is true.. People also forget that if we do get OBL, the war on terror is not over.. It is going to be a long war. I think Pakistan is doing a good job trying to get OBL.. Unless they have special intelligence I suggest that they should griping and try to live in the real world. Not a fanatsy world in where we really know where OBL is and we could just send in the Delta Force with any ramifications..
LOL yes you did - conveniently after the other poster brought your obsession up. Look, I don't care one way or another about you - just was curious to see if what the other poster said was true and when I checked, yep, he/she was correct at that time.
"..many coming back this morning...many hung-over..then all the pagers and cell phones started going off..a huge collective "aw, shit" engulfed the Beltway.."
chuckle, chuckle, he, he, he
Given the current influx, practically unhindered, of illegal immigrants, I don't think a wall on the border is counter to the principles of America. It may be counter to the principles of our neighbors' principles.
Think Post 9/11 here. Think of how much illegal immigration costs taxpayers. Think of LEGAL immigration as the solution.
The wall that Israel is erecting to keep out terrorists is working quite well, as Charles Krauthammer mentions frequently. While not all, or even many, illegal immigrants from Canada and Mexico might be terrorists, why sit around waiting to find out how many terrorists mix in with the rest of the illegal immigrants?
I understand what you are saying. But I have to wonder... we are hanging on to a government that is in a tight spot. It's in a tight spot because the vast majority of its citizens support Osama and not us. So doesn't that put them in the group that would help and support terrorists? The group that we're suppose to treat just like terrorists? I realize their president wants to be on our side. But his country doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.