Posted on 11/11/2010 2:19:38 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
Your precious DH voted for the Prescription Drug Benefit, No Child Left Behind, the Auto Bailout and the Freddie and Fannie Bailout.
LOL!
3 out of 4, maybe, you liar.
4 out of 4 you pathetic, lying POS.
You lying chump. I showed you EXACTLY the vote that allowed the f/f bailout into the unrelated House legislation. His vote was NO and you know it.
BTW, did your precious call for the repeal of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit yet? How about NCLB? Last time I saw it, she was praising it. BTW, Hunter is on record as wanting to ELIMINATE the Dept of Ed altogether (DOE too). OF course, you knew that too.
Why don’t you tell us which departments and agencies Precious would eliminate. Then why don’t you tell us which policies she’s laid out that deviate from the GOP mainstream.
I’ll be waiting *crickets*
You defend your lie by lying again. I specifically told you that the vote you showed me was only a one chamber vote. Both chambers were working on separate amendments. Both chambers didn't vote on the same Freddie and Fannie bailout amendment to unrelated House legislation until the vote that I showed you.
You known Uri-Ant, when you lie it's bad enough but when you lie to yourself, you become a pathetic liar.
AH, the feminist wing of FR. That’s how you argue when you are out of ammo.
It would take a mallet pounding on your forehead to make you understand how legislation works. The SENATE AMENDMENT WAS THE F/F BAILOUT, retard.
It would take a mallet pounding on your forehead to make you understand how legislation works. The SENATE AMENDMENT WAS THE F/F BAILOUT, retard.
Careful Piss Bug. Anything more than lightly touching a pin to your stupid, ant-sized, brainless forehead, would result in a tiny, catastrophic splat.
(How many times have I said to you), both chambers have to vote on the same piece of legislation, for it to become law you brainless piss bug.
You have never, NEVER demonstrated the final vote, that both chambers voted on, for the Fannie and Freddie bailout.
How about we apply this test to the prospective nominees:Are they in the race because they want to be president, or are they in the race to do things which they are sure will promote the general welfare in the long run? What is their signature issue, and what gives us reason to believe that they will be up to the task?Because that's what Reagan wanted to do, and did. He wasn't there because being in politics was an opportunity. He was there to get the country going again and whip inflation, which he accomplished with Reagan Kemp Roth. And he was there to tame the Energy crisis, which he did with his dealings with the Saudis and with price deregulation. And he was there to transcend communism. He did all three, against determined domestic opposition - including all of journalism without Fox News Channel and the internet.
All of them will say that they are the latter, of course - but it seems clear to me that Romney is in the race because he grew up expecting to be president because his father was a contender before him. Why is Huckabee running, what is his signature issue? Why are any of them running?I think we know that Palin, at least, got into politics to fix things that bothered her, after she had already had a life. At the federal level, her thing is the economy in general and the energy basis thereof in particular. And freedom.
I think we should not only have term limits, we should also have age minimums so that nobody entered "public service" as a career because was a business opportunity.
The House only gets to vote in the House. They are ALL one chamber votes.
You have never, NEVER demonstrated the final vote, that both chambers voted on, for the Fannie and Freddie bailout.
The "final vote" ALSO was an amendment to the now gargantuan bill. And there was no certainty or reason to believe that it would be a "final vote" at all. The Senate could have rejected the house amendment and added who knows what else into the bill.
There was only one vote that took the House Bill, a bill unrelated to bailing out F&F, and added the "Senate Amendment" - the F&F bailout - into it. Hunter voted NO
Both chambers have to vote "yes" on the same exact language for it to become law.
There was only one vote that took the House Bill, a bill unrelated to bailing out F&F, and added the "Senate Amendment" - the F&F bailout - into it. Hunter voted NO.
There were TWO votes, one in each chamber, each on the same language, that made the F&F Bailout, law.
Link to that final vote in each chamber, and then document Hunter's vote of "no" in the House vote.
You have never, over all these months done that. The last time you tried to do that, you were incorrect.
(Take your time, I'll look for it when I get back).
It’s useless arguing with someone who does not know the difference between voting on an amendment and voting “for” a bill.
Link to that final vote in each chamber, and then document Hunter's vote of "no" in that House vote.
You have never, over all these months done that. The last time you tried to do that, you were incorrect.
It’s useless arguing with someone who does not know the difference between voting on an amendment and voting “for” a bill.
Bzzzzt!
Assignment Fail!
LOL!
Wrong. THere were multiple votes for multiple amendments. At some point, the Senate agreed not to make any more amendments and agreed to the ‘final’ house amendments, sending it to the Prez.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE AMENDMENT THAT ADDED THE F&F BAILOUT TO THE BILL. ONLY ONE. IT PASSED. HUNTER VOTED NAY.
Wrong. THere were multiple votes for multiple amendments.
Argh!
Read my full sentence. I didn't say that there weren't multiple votes on multiple amendments. I said that there were two votes that made the F&F bailout, law.
At some point, the Senate agreed not to make any more amendments and agreed to the ‘final’ house amendments, sending it to the Prez. HERE WAS ONLY ONE AMENDMENT THAT ADDED THE F&F BAILOUT TO THE BILL. ONLY ONE. IT PASSED. HUNTER VOTED NAY.
Posting to you now for the skateyeighth time...
Link to the final vote, of the same language, in each chamber, that made the bailout law, and then document Hunter's vote of "no" in the House's vote.
It was only a final vote only because it was the last amendment. Nothing prevented the Senate from adding more, or rejecting the last house amendment. The last house vote was for an amendment to the bill, not the bill itself.
Among those who got their opinion in print, that was a minority view back in 1980. And it was some years after he was out of office before any Dem would begrudge him any credit.
If greatness is calculated by achievements, then Reagan wasn't 'great' until he was prez. Churchill was prescient when he was a back-bencher, but became seen as a 'great man' due to his achievements as Prime Minister. Had he never made PM, and all his warnings been ignored, he'd have just been another footnote in the history books with a reference to Cassandra.
Had Reagan never made prez, he might have been 'great' in your eyes, but would have at best made the 'had potential' list in the history books.
Not so sure about that. Even if not president, he gave some of the finest speeches on conservatism in history. The linked speech was from 1964. So even if he did not run for president, he would still be considered the leading intellectual of the modern conservative movement. And his two terms as CA gov were solid as well.
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.