| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article , says...
On 1/5/2013 2:33 PM, Meyer wrote: On 1/5/2013 12:59 PM, ESAD wrote: JustWait wrote: On 1/5/2013 12:08 PM, wrote: On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 08:54:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Do you mean the statement about heroin from the DEA or are we talking about H.R.1 YOU said that if it was a clean bill it would have "sailed through". How do you know this? That is the cite I want. Clear enough? I'll be waiting. A clean bill, simply giving money to the disaster victims would have provided the political cover they had in opposing this pork laden bill. Oh, oh... so you can't prove it would have? You must be a moron!snerk.. Now prove you have been inhaling and exhaling all day long, steadily, since midnight!!!!!! LOL! When is your afib going to catch up with you, moron? Probably never.. Even if it does, it really doesn't slow me down much... Well, it's not like you have a job or anything... |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/7/2013 10:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:48:15 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:14:26 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 08:54:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Do you mean the statement about heroin from the DEA or are we talking about H.R.1 YOU said that if it was a clean bill it would have "sailed through". How do you know this? That is the cite I want. Clear enough? I'll be waiting. A clean bill, simply giving money to the disaster victims would have provided the political cover they had in opposing this pork laden bill. Again, I'll ask "how do you know this"? Because a somewhat clean bill for FEMA funding just sailed through. You are even here talking about it. "somewhat clean"?? Are you kidding me??? Almost ALL of the pork is still there, and it wasn't a real reason why Boehner didn't want to vote on it anyway, he's politically motivated and didn't want is shadowing over his attempt to derail the country over the cliff. Bull**** This is the text of the whole ****ing bill that passed. H.R.41 -- To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. (Introduced in House - IH) HR 41 IH 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 41 To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. MENG, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. (a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and inserting `$30,425,000,000'. (b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). Unbelievable... |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/7/2013 10:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:48:15 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:14:26 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 08:54:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Do you mean the statement about heroin from the DEA or are we talking about H.R.1 YOU said that if it was a clean bill it would have "sailed through". How do you know this? That is the cite I want. Clear enough? I'll be waiting. A clean bill, simply giving money to the disaster victims would have provided the political cover they had in opposing this pork laden bill. Again, I'll ask "how do you know this"? Because a somewhat clean bill for FEMA funding just sailed through. You are even here talking about it. "somewhat clean"?? Are you kidding me??? Almost ALL of the pork is still there, and it wasn't a real reason why Boehner didn't want to vote on it anyway, he's politically motivated and didn't want is shadowing over his attempt to derail the country over the cliff. Bull**** This is the text of the whole ****ing bill that passed. H.R.41 -- To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. (Introduced in House - IH) HR 41 IH 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 41 To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. MENG, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. (a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and inserting `$30,425,000,000'. (b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). Figures, when the republicans block a storm sandy bill that is 65% pork, the media goes nuts... But when the republicans force the democrats to pass this bill, nobody says a word... |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article , says...
On 1/7/2013 10:39 AM, wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:48:15 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:14:26 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 08:54:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Do you mean the statement about heroin from the DEA or are we talking about H.R.1 YOU said that if it was a clean bill it would have "sailed through". How do you know this? That is the cite I want. Clear enough? I'll be waiting. A clean bill, simply giving money to the disaster victims would have provided the political cover they had in opposing this pork laden bill. Again, I'll ask "how do you know this"? Because a somewhat clean bill for FEMA funding just sailed through. You are even here talking about it. "somewhat clean"?? Are you kidding me??? Almost ALL of the pork is still there, and it wasn't a real reason why Boehner didn't want to vote on it anyway, he's politically motivated and didn't want is shadowing over his attempt to derail the country over the cliff. Bull**** This is the text of the whole ****ing bill that passed. H.R.41 -- To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. (Introduced in House - IH) HR 41 IH 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 41 To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. MENG, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. (a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and inserting `$30,425,000,000'. (b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). Unbelievable... It is if you are stupid enough to think that the above is the whole bill!! |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article , says...
On 1/7/2013 10:39 AM, wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:48:15 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:14:26 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 08:54:58 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... Do you mean the statement about heroin from the DEA or are we talking about H.R.1 YOU said that if it was a clean bill it would have "sailed through". How do you know this? That is the cite I want. Clear enough? I'll be waiting. A clean bill, simply giving money to the disaster victims would have provided the political cover they had in opposing this pork laden bill. Again, I'll ask "how do you know this"? Because a somewhat clean bill for FEMA funding just sailed through. You are even here talking about it. "somewhat clean"?? Are you kidding me??? Almost ALL of the pork is still there, and it wasn't a real reason why Boehner didn't want to vote on it anyway, he's politically motivated and didn't want is shadowing over his attempt to derail the country over the cliff. Bull**** This is the text of the whole ****ing bill that passed. H.R.41 -- To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. (Introduced in House - IH) HR 41 IH 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 41 To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 3, 2013 Mr. GARRETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. HANNA, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. MENG, Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. BISHOP of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. (a) Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking `$20,725,000,000' and inserting `$30,425,000,000'. (b) The amount provided by this section is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, and as an emergency pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). Figures, when the republicans block a storm sandy bill that is 65% pork, the media goes nuts... But when the republicans force the democrats to pass this bill, nobody says a word... If you are stupid enough to think this is the whole bill, I guess.... Moron. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:55:33 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. I wonder what names Kevin would call if he were ever right! |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:55:33 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. I wonder what names Kevin would call if he were ever right! First guy righteously complains about 3rd grade insults. Second guy supports him - using a 3rd grade insult. And so it goes. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/7/13 4:49 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:06:37 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/7/13 3:55 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. The reality is that no "Sandy Relief Bill" passed. The Bill that passed simply temporarily increased the funds available for the flood insurance program. That is absolutely correct but Kevin didn't get the memo. In fact the bill that passed was around before the Sandy bill got porked up and presented. I found it when I was looking for the sandy bill. I didn't read the 112th version that closely but I assume they just changed the dates and reintroduced it in the 113. It gave everyone cover because they could say it was a sandy bill and it was very clean. So clean, Kevin is still saying there must be something else. The only people who voted no were the hard core "no new spending" people. aka...the modern day John Birchers. :) |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:06:37 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/7/13 3:55 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. The reality is that no "Sandy Relief Bill" passed. The Bill that passed simply temporarily increased the funds available for the flood insurance program. That is absolutely correct but Kevin didn't get the memo. In fact the bill that passed was around before the Sandy bill got porked up and presented. I found it when I was looking for the sandy bill. I didn't read the 112th version that closely but I assume they just changed the dates and reintroduced it in the 113. It gave everyone cover because they could say it was a sandy bill and it was very clean. So clean, Kevin is still saying there must be something else. The only people who voted no were the hard core "no new spending" people. Oh, YOU presented the bill as Sandy relief!!! Nice try, but... busted. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:38:39 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:06:37 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/7/13 3:55 PM, wrote: On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. The reality is that no "Sandy Relief Bill" passed. The Bill that passed simply temporarily increased the funds available for the flood insurance program. That is absolutely correct but Kevin didn't get the memo. In fact the bill that passed was around before the Sandy bill got porked up and presented. I found it when I was looking for the sandy bill. I didn't read the 112th version that closely but I assume they just changed the dates and reintroduced it in the 113. It gave everyone cover because they could say it was a sandy bill and it was very clean. So clean, Kevin is still saying there must be something else. The only people who voted no were the hard core "no new spending" people. Oh, YOU presented the bill as Sandy relief!!! Nice try, but... busted. I didn't say H.R.41 was sandy relief, you did and you said it had the same pork as H.R.1 denying that a simple borrow and spend bill could be so simple. No I didn't. I never, ever said HR 41 was sandy relief, and I never said that is had "the same pork". I said it had pork. But now, somehow that's okay, but before, when Boehner wouldn't let a vote on it, it wasn't okay. In other words, it's just an excuse for Boehner's idiocy. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/8/2013 10:39 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:39:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:24:51 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. Well, 1, it's not the whole bill, by far. 2, it's not a bill for Sandy relief. So.... nice try. Well 1 it IS the whole bill and 2 it is what they are calling the sandy bill. It will fund the flood relief, emergency housing and other FEMA functions. WHO is calling it the Sandy bill? Cite please. MSNBC http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/04/sandy-aid-bill-passes/ CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/politics/house-sandy-bill-vote/index.html Huff Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/hurricane-sandy-aid_n_2409538.html Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/05/congress-passes-7-billion-sandy-bill/ Is that enough or should I go through the rest of the media sites. LOL... |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/8/13 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:00:10 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 1/8/2013 10:39 AM, wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:39:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:24:51 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. Well, 1, it's not the whole bill, by far. 2, it's not a bill for Sandy relief. So.... nice try. Well 1 it IS the whole bill and 2 it is what they are calling the sandy bill. It will fund the flood relief, emergency housing and other FEMA functions. WHO is calling it the Sandy bill? Cite please. MSNBC http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/04/sandy-aid-bill-passes/ CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/politics/house-sandy-bill-vote/index.html Huff Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/hurricane-sandy-aid_n_2409538.html Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/05/congress-passes-7-billion-sandy-bill/ Is that enough or should I go through the rest of the media sites. LOL... Who would you think would say it? Reid and Boehner called it Sandy relief too. It will be interesting to see what sort of bill for actual Sandy relief is proposed and passed. If the Repugnicants don't allow it, it will be even more interesting to see what happens the next time there is a major natural disaster in their congressional districts. Something horrific in Texas, Alabama, Arizona (earthquakes and locusts?) and the Dakotas... :) |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article , says...
On 1/8/2013 10:39 AM, wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:39:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:24:51 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. Well, 1, it's not the whole bill, by far. 2, it's not a bill for Sandy relief. So.... nice try. Well 1 it IS the whole bill and 2 it is what they are calling the sandy bill. It will fund the flood relief, emergency housing and other FEMA functions. WHO is calling it the Sandy bill? Cite please. MSNBC http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/04/sandy-aid-bill-passes/ CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/politics/house-sandy-bill-vote/index.html Huff Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/hurricane-sandy-aid_n_2409538.html Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/05/congress-passes-7-billion-sandy-bill/ Is that enough or should I go through the rest of the media sites. LOL... Hey, Stupid Scotty, I thought you didn't believe what the media tells you, now you do all of a sudden?!! LOL indeed. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:00:10 -0500, JustWait wrote: On 1/8/2013 10:39 AM, wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 08:39:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:24:51 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 15:11:01 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , Once again, I'll ask. Are you really trying to tell people this is the whole bill? Yes and I am doing it without the 3d grade insults you can't seem to avoid when you are wrong. Well, 1, it's not the whole bill, by far. 2, it's not a bill for Sandy relief. So.... nice try. Well 1 it IS the whole bill and 2 it is what they are calling the sandy bill. It will fund the flood relief, emergency housing and other FEMA functions. WHO is calling it the Sandy bill? Cite please. MSNBC http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/04/sandy-aid-bill-passes/ CNN http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/politics/house-sandy-bill-vote/index.html Huff Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/hurricane-sandy-aid_n_2409538.html Fox http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/05/congress-passes-7-billion-sandy-bill/ Is that enough or should I go through the rest of the media sites. LOL... Who would you think would say it? Reid and Boehner called it Sandy relief too. Bull****. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/8/13 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:39:13 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/8/13 11:34 AM, wrote: Who would you think would say it? Reid and Boehner called it Sandy relief too. It will be interesting to see what sort of bill for actual Sandy relief is proposed and passed. If the Repugnicants don't allow it, it will be even more interesting to see what happens the next time there is a major natural disaster in their congressional districts. Something horrific in Texas, Alabama, Arizona (earthquakes and locusts?) and the Dakotas... :) For all practical purposes, this was Sandy relief. It should all be coming through FEMA anyway and that is who got the extra $9 billion Nine billion won't begin to touch what is needed to bring back the devastated areas. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/8/2013 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:39:13 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/8/13 11:34 AM, wrote: Who would you think would say it? Reid and Boehner called it Sandy relief too. It will be interesting to see what sort of bill for actual Sandy relief is proposed and passed. If the Repugnicants don't allow it, it will be even more interesting to see what happens the next time there is a major natural disaster in their congressional districts. Something horrific in Texas, Alabama, Arizona (earthquakes and locusts?) and the Dakotas... :) For all practical purposes, this was Sandy relief. It should all be coming through FEMA anyway and that is who got the extra $9 billion And all in all, it's just a joke and a tool the dems used to smash the republicans again... The fact is, it was already funded with 5 billion sitting in banks waiting to be handed out already.... |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article , says...
On 1/8/2013 12:18 PM, wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 11:39:13 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/8/13 11:34 AM, wrote: Who would you think would say it? Reid and Boehner called it Sandy relief too. It will be interesting to see what sort of bill for actual Sandy relief is proposed and passed. If the Repugnicants don't allow it, it will be even more interesting to see what happens the next time there is a major natural disaster in their congressional districts. Something horrific in Texas, Alabama, Arizona (earthquakes and locusts?) and the Dakotas... :) For all practical purposes, this was Sandy relief. It should all be coming through FEMA anyway and that is who got the extra $9 billion And all in all, it's just a joke and a tool the dems used to smash the republicans again... The fact is, it was already funded with 5 billion sitting in banks waiting to be handed out already.... Now, do tell, just how did that happen?? I know you can't answer because it's insane bull**** in your head and your head only. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On 1/8/13 7:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:20:44 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 1/8/13 12:18 PM, wrote: For all practical purposes, this was Sandy relief. It should all be coming through FEMA anyway and that is who got the extra $9 billion Nine billion won't begin to touch what is needed to bring back the devastated areas. Most of that damage is not the federal government's problem. FEMA really just sells flood insurance and if people chose to gamble and not buy it, they lost. I am not covering your blackjack losses at Blackwood either. If the damage is not from flood, private insurance should be handling it. Private insurance companies go out of there way to blame damage on "flood," even when it is not caused by a flood. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 11:25:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
You have been wrong so many times it is hard for me to keep it straight exactly what the hell you are talking about Now you have exactly one thing in common with him. He can't keep it straight, either! |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:05:08 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article "Procurement of Ammunition, Army For an additional amount for `Procurement of Ammunition, Army', $1,310,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy." How many survivors do the army plan to shoot? Jesus H. Christ, grab your knees so they don't jerk you to death. I thought you were a "fact" guy. Hurricane Sandy army ammunition. First hit. http://www.asmconline.org/2012/12/pr...0-billion-for- hurricane-sandy-assistance/ "Repairs to ammunitions production facilities at the Army Ammunition Plant in Radford, Virginia would require $1.3 million in Procurement of Ammunition Army funds." Military facilities aren't immune to hurricanes. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:05:08 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article "Procurement of Ammunition, Army For an additional amount for `Procurement of Ammunition, Army', $1,310,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy." How many survivors do the army plan to shoot? Jesus H. Christ, grab your knees so they don't jerk you to death. I thought you were a "fact" guy. Hurricane Sandy army ammunition. First hit. http://www.asmconline.org/2012/12/pr...0-billion-for- hurricane-sandy-assistance/ "Repairs to ammunitions production facilities at the Army Ammunition Plant in Radford, Virginia would require $1.3 million in Procurement of Ammunition Army funds." Military facilities aren't immune to hurricanes. It is not the intention of the US Congress to write legislation that is direct, concise and unquestionable. |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... It is not the intention of the US Congress to write legislation that is direct, concise and unquestionable. Same goes for most organizations, including the Army. Here's a good example of Army terminology. The boys are organizing to go after Mr Big. You can go to 42:45 to hear some "Army talk." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2rxy0xeRA8 |
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
|
Hey, Scotty, what do you think about THIS:
In article ,
says... In article , says... On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 09:05:08 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article "Procurement of Ammunition, Army For an additional amount for `Procurement of Ammunition, Army', $1,310,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy." How many survivors do the army plan to shoot? Jesus H. Christ, grab your knees so they don't jerk you to death. I thought you were a "fact" guy. Hurricane Sandy army ammunition. First hit. http://www.asmconline.org/2012/12/pr...0-billion-for- hurricane-sandy-assistance/ "Repairs to ammunitions production facilities at the Army Ammunition Plant in Radford, Virginia would require $1.3 million in Procurement of Ammunition Army funds." Military facilities aren't immune to hurricanes. snerk |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com