wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

How does DeMint prevent 99 senators from confirming the TSA nominee?

--
41 of them must not be convinced he is the right guy.


Nope. One. He quit because he didn't want to become a political football.
He
was highly qualified. Read up on it.

It takes more than one guy to play "football".
If 60 Senators wanted to shut Demint down he would have been shut
down. If you said they couldn't get 60, I would agree.
60 can force a vote on anything, remember what happened right before
Christmas?


You don't know the rules of the Senate. Check it out. Any senator can do
this.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose
something in the Senate it is probably not happening.

Wrong again. 60 is the magic number to stop a filibuster.

The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people
oppose it too. (which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform)
Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it
for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a
month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance.
The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs. It only
fattens the wallets of the insurance companies but that shouldn't
shock anyone. The insurance lobby wrote the bill.

Not sure which bill you're talking about... Senate or House. The House bill
was much better and more widely supported. I was never a big fan of the
final senate bill.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:49 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:03:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:02:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Please show me where I said it was one side.

Stop blaming Clinton and the democrats for something that's obviously
been
supported far longer and with more fervor by the right wing."


Both accurate statements. Your point?

You are saying it is one sided and then denying you said it,



I said both sides where involved, but one side supported it longer and
more
strenuously. No contradiction.


In the case of the 1999 and 2000 deregulation bills it was the Clinton
administration (in particular Sec Treas Larry Summers). CNN just had a
blurb on that today, pointing out that Summers is in a tough position
if he tried to reverse the CFMA, simply because he was the one that
pushed it in the first place. The same weasels who set us up for this
fall are still in charge. If you want to blame Bush (both of them),
you also have to blame the 4th brother. It was an unbroken agenda of
deregulation since 1989. Obama seems pretty slow to actually embrace
any real fixes too. I think he is the 5th brother and have since about
January 2008. I supported him before that when he was the "change guy"
but that didn't survive the campaign.

And, that has nothing to do with the effort that lead up to that date.
You're attempting to blame the Democrats for something that had bipartisan
support for decades. Get over it. You're wrong.

I voted for Paris Hilton. If she was good enough for Jed Bartlett she
was good enough for me. ;-)

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:16:55 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose
something in the Senate it is probably not happening.

who's the GOP whip? he's a moron but he's 1 guy. and he stopped
heatlhcare just like gramm did


The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people
oppose it too.

uh no. nate silver at 538.com did a survery. each individual point of
the healthcare package, except mandates, has majority support. a
majority opposed the package primarily because they don't know what's
in it.

in addition, the right is FAR better at marketing its lies. hell, the
minority whip in the senate the other day was defending WALL STREET
complaining of 'class warfare'. can you freakin' believe it? the GOP
is so out of control they're defending wall street

(which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform)
Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it
for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a
month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance.
The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs.

the GOP already took are of that with one of the largest debt funded
packages in US history.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:11:01 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:34:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:32:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:51:07 -0500, Harry
wrote:

You righties seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the purpose
of a labor union.
I know all about unions, remember my mom worked for the Teamster's
international for 20 years.
Unfortunately the UAW and the big 3 management companies were all
creating an unsustainable bubble in what they were giving the
employees. It wasn't about "fair" or "enough", it was always about
"more".
They simply jacked up the prices of the cars, everybody was making a
lot of money and we paid it.
That bubble popped.

except, of course, wages are less than 10% of the price of a car...


... and the pension plan is 15% of the price

and in other countries, pensions are paid by the govt. so their auto
mfrs. get a subsidy

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:34:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


You said "choose to ignore an education and/or are lazy." That sounds
elitist to me.

Have you determined that you're arguing with DK, come Rob, come Bruce?

It's funny how one disappears, only to be replaced with another of the
same political persuasion and background. Then there's the funny
coincidence that he posts at the same time of the day that DK, Rob and
whatever else he calls himself. He follows you and Don around. Too
many similarities and habits he just can't break.

Ask him where he lives and what kind of car he drives. If he doesn't
lie, you'll know its Dan "Freddy" Krueger.

Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:59 -0500, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:42:10 -0500, John H
wrote:



It's OK for Democrats to bribe each other with taxpayer money,
but not
OK for both Democrats and Republicans to recieve corporate money.

Liberal thinking is quite strange.

now let's see...which justices voted to allow even MORE corruption in
the system?

oh...the conservative ones


Cite?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34822247...supreme_court/


"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony
Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more
conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent,
"The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor
joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the
courtroom.
You did say corruption, right? Where was that in your cite?


Bruce, apparently, is another right-winger who cannot think in the
abstract.

Figures.

So I should have to imagine what his point is when he posts an invalid cite?

Harry wrote:
Bruce wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:00:24 -0500, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:26:38 -0600,
wrote:


On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:55:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


you have a point. i hope folks dont forget bush. but it looks like
mebbe they are.


Disband the Senate? Your normally post a lot of weird **** but
this is
just dumb.
uh why? what function does the senate serve? and, yes, there are
plenty of democracies without a 'higher' chamber.

so, other than your assertion that it's dumb, do you have any
evidence? history is on my side, it seems

I'd like to see shorter terms and term limits, but the senate is part
of our constitution.


I'd like to see the heads of mindless conservatives on pikes,
but...that would mean cutting down more trees.
How...adult of you, ****stain.

wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:18:10 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:44:47 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

How does Gramm make 99 other senators go along?

the same way 40 republicans can hold up healthcare for 300M americans

40 is not one. That was the assertion. I agree if 40 people oppose
something in the Senate it is probably not happening.

Wrong again. 60 is the magic number to stop a filibuster.

That is why I originally said it takes 41 to stop something

These are two different things. A single senator can block some things.

The health care bill they have is so flawed the majority of the people
oppose it too. (which brings back on topic, remember Brown's platform)
Basically it gives people who have no insurance the right to buy it
for $1000 a month. Most of these people don't have an extra $1000 a
month. It would also raise the price for people with insurance.
The bill does nothing to cut prices for medical care or drugs. It only
fattens the wallets of the insurance companies but that shouldn't
shock anyone. The insurance lobby wrote the bill.

Not sure which bill you're talking about... Senate or House. The House
bill
was much better and more widely supported. I was never a big fan of the
final senate bill.

The current Senate bill is the one they are stuck with since it is the
last filibuster proof one they will ever see. The GOP has their 41
now. They could try reconciliation but the polls are saying it would
be the kiss of death for all the blue dogs and as we saw in
Massachusetts, maybe even some "safe" seats,

For the current bill, sure. The public wants reform, and I believe that's
going to happen.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:43:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The public wants reform, and I believe that's
going to happen.

The public wants cheaper health care and the congress is not likely to
actually come up with it as long as they are in the pocket of the
lawyers, medical and insurance lobbies.


I don't think that's really accurate, except in the general sense of
everyone wanting to spend less money. I think people want affordable
coverage that actually does what people are led to believe it does.

I think there's a strong sense of expectation that reform will happen. If it
doesn't happen, I think the Democrats will lose seats, but I'm not sure the
Republicans will gain much, since they're mostly seen as obstructing change.

--
Nom=de=Plume