Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
m...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government option is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these, these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34 years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill or a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the approval of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand. Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to "attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not expect was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his boys at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end, but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:10:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
om...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government option is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these, these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34 years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill or a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the approval of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand. Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to "attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not expect was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his boys at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end, but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Your brain is a very capable organ. It seems even to be manufacturing
serious hallucinations in this case.

It was a bluff by Republicans, the Dems called 'em on it. The only
glory stealing that exists is in your head.

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:10:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
news:ebqdnX20bqROb4HWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthlin k.com...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking
Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government option
is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no
other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good
enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans
wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor
this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no
qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these,
these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they
want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious
about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34
years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator
Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to
look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a
great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of
credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill or
a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the approval
of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand.
Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why
wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be
denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to
"attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that
two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the
Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not expect
was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their
little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his boys
at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end,
but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Your brain is a very capable organ. It seems even to be manufacturing
serious hallucinations in this case.

It was a bluff by Republicans, the Dems called 'em on it. The only
glory stealing that exists is in your head.

They actually did steal the glory. Good politicking!

I agree, but it was pretty much the Republican's own doing. They probably
thought they could make some political points, and then it backfired. If
they want their party to survive, they need to stop thinking just about
themselves and start thinking smart politics, which means inclusion not
exclusion.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Both the ****ing parties need to think of the people, not what is best for
the party. Neither is including the people who voted for them and also
pay the bills.

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:10:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
news:ebqdnX20bqROb4HWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthli nk.com...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking
Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and
Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government
option is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no
other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good
enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans
wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara
A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto
the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor
this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no
qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these,
these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they
want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious
about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34
years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator
Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to
look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a
great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of
credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill
or a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the
approval of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand.
Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's
what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why
wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be
denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to
"attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that
two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the
Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off
health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not expect
was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their
little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his
boys at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end,
but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Your brain is a very capable organ. It seems even to be manufacturing
serious hallucinations in this case.

It was a bluff by Republicans, the Dems called 'em on it. The only
glory stealing that exists is in your head.

They actually did steal the glory. Good politicking!

I agree, but it was pretty much the Republican's own doing. They probably
thought they could make some political points, and then it backfired. If
they want their party to survive, they need to stop thinking just about
themselves and start thinking smart politics, which means inclusion not
exclusion.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Both the ****ing parties need to think of the people, not what is best
for the party. Neither is including the people who voted for them and
also pay the bills.

I disagree. It's pretty clear that the Democrats, at least wrt to healthcare
reform are doing (or at least most of them are attempting to do) what the
people want.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:10:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in
message
news:ebqdnX20bqROb4HWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earthl ink.com...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health
care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to
be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise
in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking
Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and
Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government
option is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no
other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good
enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans
wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara
A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto
the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members
of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor
this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no
qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these,
these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they
want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious
about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34
years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this
thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator
Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to
look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a
great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for
this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of
credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of
the bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill
or a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the
approval of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand.
Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's
what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why
wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be
denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to
"attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that
two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the
Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off
health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not
expect was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their
little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his
boys at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end,
but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Your brain is a very capable organ. It seems even to be manufacturing
serious hallucinations in this case.

It was a bluff by Republicans, the Dems called 'em on it. The only
glory stealing that exists is in your head.

They actually did steal the glory. Good politicking!

I agree, but it was pretty much the Republican's own doing. They
probably thought they could make some political points, and then it
backfired. If they want their party to survive, they need to stop
thinking just about themselves and start thinking smart politics, which
means inclusion not exclusion.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Both the ****ing parties need to think of the people, not what is best
for the party. Neither is including the people who voted for them and
also pay the bills.

I disagree. It's pretty clear that the Democrats, at least wrt to
healthcare reform are doing (or at least most of them are attempting to
do) what the people want.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You must be a lot more stupid than I figured you were.

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:21:38 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:10:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in
message
news:ebqdnX20bqROb4HWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earth link.com...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health
care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to
be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise
in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking
Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and
Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government
option is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no
other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good
enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans
wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara
A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto
the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members
of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor
this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no
qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these,
these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they
want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious
about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34
years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this
thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator
Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to
look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a
great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for
this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of
credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of
the bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill
or a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the
approval of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand.
Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's
what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why
wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be
denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to
"attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that
two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the
Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off
health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not
expect was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their
little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his
boys at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end,
but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Your brain is a very capable organ. It seems even to be manufacturing
serious hallucinations in this case.

It was a bluff by Republicans, the Dems called 'em on it. The only
glory stealing that exists is in your head.

They actually did steal the glory. Good politicking!

I agree, but it was pretty much the Republican's own doing. They
probably thought they could make some political points, and then it
backfired. If they want their party to survive, they need to stop
thinking just about themselves and start thinking smart politics, which
means inclusion not exclusion.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Both the ****ing parties need to think of the people, not what is best
for the party. Neither is including the people who voted for them and
also pay the bills.

I disagree. It's pretty clear that the Democrats, at least wrt to
healthcare reform are doing (or at least most of them are attempting to
do) what the people want.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You must be a lot more stupid than I figured you were.


Bill can't be wrong, it must be you. You're better off letting him
think he won and move on.

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:21:38 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:10:18 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in
message
news:ebqdnX20bqROb4HWnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@earth link.com...
Bill McKee wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...
"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:32:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
This politics stuff is getting kind of fun.

When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health
care
amendment
that would require all senators and representatives to
be
enrolled in
the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise
in
opposition.

What happened next is just RICH.

Julie Gulden's diary :: :: On Thursday, thinking
Democratic
senators
would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and
Tom
Coburn
(R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment.

"The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government
option is
in the
bill, every senator and every representative should be
enrolled in
it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no
other
choices."

"It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good
enough
for
everybody else, we ought to be leading by example."

But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans
wouldn't
allow
it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a
co-sponsor of
the amendment, he got the cold shoulder.

So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara
A.
Mikulski
(D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto
the
amendment
with a unanimous consent vote.

Franken: I rise and ask for unanimous consent to be a
co-sponsor to
Senator Coburn's Amendment #2789 requiring all members
of
congress to
enroll in the public option. I am pleased to co-sponsor
this
because
I strongly support the public option and would have no
qualms
at all
about enrolling in this plan.

Brown: And it's a little curious that some of these,
these
two
sponsors are so much against the public option but they
want
to pass
this amendment. It sounds to me like you are as serious
about
going on
the public option as I am.

Franken:
Well, I talked to my wife Franny, we've been married 34
years
now, I
talked to her a couple weeks ago and I said if this
thing
passes we
should go on the public option. She said absolutely.

Presider of the Senate: Without objection Senator
Franken's
motion to
be a co-sponsor of the amendment is approved.

From Julie Gulden on Kos.

Franken must have been born in Kenya. :)
Coburn and Vitter are both idiots. They didn't bother to
look
one
move further on the board before they moved their man.

Kudos to Franken and Sherrod Brown.
Lets look at the the item. The Republicans come up with a
great
idea. The Dem's say let us take a lot of the credit for
this
idea. And the Dem majority goes along with the theft of
credit.
So wanting to co-sponor a bill is "theft of credit" on your
planet?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Normally the cosponsors sign on ahead of time.
Nope....

Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of
the bill
in the Senate. Co-sponsors may also be added to a Senate bill
or a
House bill immediately following adoption of the bill on third
reading or on final passage.

The addition of any co-sponsors shall be subject to the
approval of
the Senate prime sponsor of the bill and the approval of any
co-sponsor who is being added.

--
Nom=de=Plume

c. Seems as if that rule is no more.


I know that the word "may" is difficult for you to understand.
Perhaps
you should look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I understand you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me repeat:
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"
No need to repeat, oh well... here it is anyway:

"Co-sponsors may be added to a bill prior to introduction of the
bill in
the Senate."

There are obviously other ways to be a co-sponsor, since that's
what
happened. So, pray tell, if the amendment was so wonderful, why
wouldn't
a Senator want a co-sponsor?

I'm not sure what mental problems you have, since you seem to be
denying
reality.
--
Nom=de=Plume


Mental problems? That seems to be you.


As I reported the rules.
"At the approval of the prime sponsor of the bill"



Bill, Bill, Bill...there's more than one way for co-sponsors to
"attach"
themselves to a bit of legislation or an amendment to same.

What happened here, and what everyone realizes (except you), is that
two
of your boys, neither of whom are among the brightest boys in the
Senate,
introduced an amendment they thought would either help kill off
health
care legislation or embarrass the Democrats. What they did not
expect was
that the Democrats would embrace the idea. In other words, their
little
idea backfired on Vitter and Coburn.

Perhaps Vitter ought to stick to whoremongering and Coburn to his
boys at
the "C Street House" of ill repute.



Nope, is a case of well we will steal the glory. Kill it in the end,
but
say we were those for it. Pigs.

Your brain is a very capable organ. It seems even to be manufacturing
serious hallucinations in this case.

It was a bluff by Republicans, the Dems called 'em on it. The only
glory stealing that exists is in your head.

They actually did steal the glory. Good politicking!

I agree, but it was pretty much the Republican's own doing. They
probably thought they could make some political points, and then it
backfired. If they want their party to survive, they need to stop
thinking just about themselves and start thinking smart politics, which
means inclusion not exclusion.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Both the ****ing parties need to think of the people, not what is best
for the party. Neither is including the people who voted for them and
also pay the bills.

I disagree. It's pretty clear that the Democrats, at least wrt to
healthcare reform are doing (or at least most of them are attempting to
do) what the people want.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You must be a lot more stupid than I figured you were.

Congratulations! The 'a-ha' light came on bright enough to see on the
east coast.
--

John H

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:21:38 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

You must be a lot more stupid than I figured you were.

Congratulations! The 'a-ha' light came on bright enough to see on the
east coast.
--

John H


You sayin' Bill's usually a dim bulb?

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

On Dec 9, 12:36*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:21:38 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

You must be a lot more stupid than I figured you were.

Congratulations! The 'a-ha' light came on bright enough to see on the
east coast.
--

John H

You sayin' Bill's usually a dim bulb?

Can you even READ you idiot?

Excellent Republican amendment to HCR
 

In article 222d9e17-caaf-4f80-9217-32714a2c51e1
@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 9, 12:36*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:21:38 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

You must be a lot more stupid than I figured you were.

Congratulations! The 'a-ha' light came on bright enough to see on the
east coast.
--

John H

You sayin' Bill's usually a dim bulb?

Can you even READ you idiot?

That's about enough of you picking on my Donny, you Schitt. For one, I'm
taller than you, that makes me a manly sort. And I have guns. So you
better leave Donny alone or I'll have my closed circuit surveillance
system identify you, got it SFB?

--
Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID