In article , says...

On 1/5/2013 12:11 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:12 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/5/13 10:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 1/5/2013 1:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:31:59 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



I guess he'll be ****ed because his right wing passed this, eh?

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-
politics/20130102/US.Superstorm.Aid/


Typical Comcast

We?re Sorry
The article you are looking for cannot be found or is no longer
available.


It's no surprise that Loogy hasn't yet learned to present a link
properly.

Gee, I had absolutely NO problems with it. It seems as you do, though.
I've tried to make it as simple as possible for you, because you've told
us you can't cut and paste.


The link worked for me. Of course, I use a mac.

If my computer sees a space or carriage return in the middle of a link
it ignores what follows. Links are highlighted so it's easy to see the
mistakes Loogy makes. His links aren't worth more than 1 click, if that.

Same here...

Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

On 1/5/13 1:47 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/5/2013 12:11 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 1/5/2013 10:12 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 1/5/13 10:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article om,
says...

On 1/5/2013 1:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:31:59 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



I guess he'll be ****ed because his right wing passed this, eh?

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-
politics/20130102/US.Superstorm.Aid/


Typical Comcast

We?re Sorry
The article you are looking for cannot be found or is no longer
available.


It's no surprise that Loogy hasn't yet learned to present a link
properly.

Gee, I had absolutely NO problems with it. It seems as you do, though.
I've tried to make it as simple as possible for you, because you've told
us you can't cut and paste.


The link worked for me. Of course, I use a mac.

If my computer sees a space or carriage return in the middle of a link
it ignores what follows. Links are highlighted so it's easy to see the
mistakes Loogy makes. His links aren't worth more than 1 click, if that.

Same here...

Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?


What makes you think Snotty Scotty votes?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:25:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head

OK I looked it up and, sa usual you are full of ****

This is the text of the bill that passed, No Alaska fisheries, No roof
on the Smithsonian or any of the other crap in the 100 page H.R.1


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)).

Oh, ****, are you really trying to tell people here that THAT is the
bill in it's entirety???? Really????

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 12:05:14 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:25:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head

OK I looked it up and, sa usual you are full of ****

This is the text of the bill that passed, No Alaska fisheries, No roof
on the Smithsonian or any of the other crap in the 100 page H.R.1


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)).

Oh, ****, are you really trying to tell people here that THAT is the
bill in it's entirety???? Really????


Yes, That is the entire bill, including the headers.

Legislation does not have to be 100 pages.

You could have looked it up yourself but you seem incapable of any
serious research beyond the top hit on Google and whatever Wikipedia
says.

You are wrong. Do you want me to show you?

On 1/7/2013 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:25:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head

OK I looked it up and, sa usual you are full of ****

This is the text of the bill that passed, No Alaska fisheries, No roof
on the Smithsonian or any of the other crap in the 100 page H.R.1


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)).


Hey, do you have the same for the original bill the republicans forced
the dems to dump?

In article , says...

On 1/7/2013 11:04 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:25:28 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 13:47:37 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, I'm sure, since you first bitched and whined like a friggin' baby
that nothing was being done to help Sandy victims. Then when I pointed
out WHY, because Boehner wouldn't allow a vote to get something done,
you instantly turned to FOX's answer that it was because of pork. Well,
the pork is still there, Boehner let the Republicans vote for it. So,
the question is, are you okay with it now? If so, what has changed? If
not, are you going to vote against those Republicans in office for the
pork they allowed?

The bill they passed was not the same bill as the one they didn't. Not
even close but you are too lazy or lack the intellectual
curiosity/ability to find that out.

Do I really have to look that one up for you too?

The point is there is still much, much pork in the bill, but now that's
okay right? And no, you don't look up much of anything, you position
like Scotty's is usually made up in your head

OK I looked it up and, sa usual you are full of ****

This is the text of the bill that passed, No Alaska fisheries, No roof
on the Smithsonian or any of the other crap in the 100 page H.R.1


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)).


Hey, do you have the same for the original bill the republicans forced
the dems to dump?

Nobody forced anybody to dump anything, stupid. Boehner wouldn't even
let a vote be done, so how could that have happened?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:14:48 -0500, JustWait
wrote:

do you have the same for the original bill the republicans forced
the dems to dump?

I posted the table of contents alone and it was bordering on the limit
for a text only newsgroup.
The whole bill in text format is up there with what you would find on
an alt.binary.mp3 group in size.

It ishttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.0001:

... and I was wrong. This bounced around in the Senate for a year and
7 months.
The first Senate vote on the house version was 3/9/11 and the
DEMOCRATS defeated it on a party line vote.

Then they loaded up the pork over the 19 months, tacked on the FEMA
bill (that was passed later, clean, as H.R41) and passed it. The
house rejected it because it was $100 billion more than what they sent
over.

Poke around that site and get an idea how congress really works. Use
that summary page to see all the actions, votes, amendments and you
can even link to the testimony and floor actions of they are
available.
You could spend days, just looking at this one bill.

How could it? It's not been "a year and 7 months" since Sandy.