sO.......

[Busyman™]

....did anyone see how our prescription drug benefit came about on 60 Minutes?

60 Minutes is the shit.

One of the most illogical pieces of sell-out legislation I have ever seen was just played out with the HOW and WHY.

I really do like the movie The Distinguished Gentlemen even more so now. The provision that doesn't allow the government to negotiate on price for drugs came about in such a corrupt way that I don't see how it was even allowed.

The voting happened at around 3 am so most of American public couldn't see it unfold.

Voting stayed open for about 3 hours so many Republicans could hound other members to vote their way.

Many of the Republican congressman that spearheaded the effort, now make millions of dollars as drug company lobbyists.

WHAT.....THE......FUCK?!!!

I like the Dems idea of making former congressman wait 2 years before taking any lobbyist jobs. Between that and pork that has shit all to do with a given bill, this is like built-in government corruption.

I will point out that there were Republicans that were against this illogic. In the 60 Minutes piece one said that he had never seen anything like that night in his 22 years.

[vidcc]

Didn't see the program but the issue was well documented ( but not in the liberal mainstream media :rolleyes: )

Bush has vowed to veto the bill to allow government to get value for our tax dollars.:dry:

[Busyman™]

Didn't see the program but the issue was well documented ( but not in the liberal mainstream media :rolleyes: )

Bush has vowed to veto the bill to allow government to get value for our tax dollars.:dry:

Right you would think that how this bill came about (and it's aftermath) would have been all over the news a long time ago.

Especially by the so called "liberal media".

I say again, 60 Minutes is the shit.

Well time to watch the tourney.....

[j2k4]

Funny, the "liberal media" doesn't seem to be overplaying this little tidbit, either, although it gets mentioned on FOXNEWS now and again...

The Devil Wears Earmarks

By Winslow T. Wheeler

Democratic congressional majorities claim to be reforming the misbehavior that flourished under the previous -- and deservedly extinct -- Republican domination of Capitol Hill.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised "the most ethical Congress ever." One abuse being addressed is "earmarking" -- the practice of pandering to constituent favor and vested interests with special projects injected into spending bills -- also known as "pork." Based on press coverage, it would seem that Pelosi and her party have, at a minimum, made an honest effort to deliver on their promise.

It would be nice if that were true, but it is not.

I spent more than 30 years working on Capitol Hill, many of them spent as an integral part of the congressional pork factory, grubbing for morsels for the Democratic and Republican senators who employed me.

I saw at close hand how immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks the Senate dramatically increased the pork in defense spending bills. I also observed how the Senate's self-proclaimed "pork-buster," John McCain (R-Ariz.), sat on his parliamentary hands as other senators raided Pentagon accounts for combat training, weapon repairs and other war essentials to pay for the pork.
I have been eager to witness the end to -- or even a reduction of -- this atrocious system. Given what the Democrats have done so far this year, I'm going to have to wait some more.

Here's what they've done.

House Resolution 6, Pelosi's ballyhooed measure to reform earmarking and other abuses, permits any spending bill to be ruled "out of order" in the House (and therefore dead) unless it is accompanied by a list of all earmarks in the bill and its associated legislative materials. The identity of each earmark's congressional sponsor must be displayed along with "the name and address of the intended recipient" or "the intended location" of the earmark, its purpose and a certification that no member of Congress, or spouse, has any financial interest in the earmark. In other words, the reform seeks to shed sunshine on earmarks.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

The sunshine this measure sheds is more deceptive than illuminating. That's because each earmark description, and all the associated information, is to be supplied not by an objective entity, but by the earmark's congressional sponsor. In other words, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) will be allowed to explain without fear of contradiction why his brown tree snake eradication program should be added to the defense budget. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) can articulate every reason the Boeing Co. has fed him for why another four-star general needs a new VIP aircraft.

Inouye will not be required to explain that his snake eradication program really belongs in a domestic spending bill (if any objective auditor were to determine it is an effective program), and Murtha will not be required to divulge that he, along with other members of Congress, can also fly in that fancy new executive jet.

These lawmakers -- and all other congressional porkers -- would be crazy not to comply with the new "anti-pork" reforms. They are nothing less than free advertising.

There's more. The second step in the Democrats' earmarking reform occurs in the first appropriations bill they passed in the House after coming to power. This measure is the "continuing resolution" to fund most of the government for the current fiscal year. Last year, in a shameless abdication of responsibility, the Republicans failed to enact appropriations for any federal agency except the departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Instead, they put the rest of the government onto "stopgap" spending. The Democrats quite sensibly -- and rather quickly -- put together the continuing resolution. They even added a special provision, Section 112, which they said explicitly eliminates earmarks.

The devil, however, is in the details. What they eliminated with one hand they restored with the other. For example, Section 20203 (2) of the measure that "explicitly eliminates earmarks" added three earmarks to the defense budget: $217.5 million for three research projects for breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. That's right, cancer research in the defense budget. Democrats and Republicans have been plugging nondefense cancer research earmarks into Pentagon spending for years; 2007 is no exception.

Worse, the Democrats' continuing resolution failed to do anything about the earmarks they and the Republicans added last September to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, now in effect. This statute contains thousands of earmarks costing several billion dollars. The money to pay for them is not added to increase the spending in the bill; instead, and as usual, Congress raided training, weapons maintenance and other accounts to pay for the lawmakers' pork. None of that is undone.

On close inspection, the continuing resolution's "elimination" of earmarks has a strange ring to it. It says that all earmarks in 2006 appropriations measures "shall have no legal effect" for the new 2007 bill. That's a strange way to eliminate spending. Why not simply remove the funding, thereby making the earmark physically impossible to continue into fiscal 2007?

Moreover, because most earmarks simply are mere lines in committee reports and have "no legal effect" to begin with, they are enforced by the retribution that legislators can impose on agencies reluctant to follow their "friendly advice" on how money should be spent.

The impenetrable language in the continuing resolution raises questions about how many members of Congress are quietly contacting federal agencies and offering more "friendly advice" on how to spend the money made available for projects for which there is no -- strictly speaking -- "legal" requirement, but which the Appropriations Committee explicitly endorsed.

The Democrats' new reforms to eliminate earmarks do no such thing. They provide free advertising for congressional porkers, permit thousands of earmarks in 2007 Pentagon spending, add a few new ones and talk around the continuation of last year's earmarks in nondefense agencies' budgets into the new year.

This isn't just a few typical congressional loopholes in a bill -- it's an insult to Swiss cheese.

Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. He spent 30 years working for Democratic and Republican senators and the Government Accountability Office on national security issues. He is author of "The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security" (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2004).




The Dems are doing a lovely job, eh?

[Busyman™]

Funny, the "liberal media" doesn't seem to be overplaying this little tidbit, either, although it gets mentioned on FOXNEWS now and again...

The Devil Wears Earmarks

By Winslow T. Wheeler

Democratic congressional majorities claim to be reforming the misbehavior that flourished under the previous -- and deservedly extinct -- Republican domination of Capitol Hill.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised "the most ethical Congress ever." One abuse being addressed is "earmarking" -- the practice of pandering to constituent favor and vested interests with special projects injected into spending bills -- also known as "pork." Based on press coverage, it would seem that Pelosi and her party have, at a minimum, made an honest effort to deliver on their promise.

It would be nice if that were true, but it is not.

I spent more than 30 years working on Capitol Hill, many of them spent as an integral part of the congressional pork factory, grubbing for morsels for the Democratic and Republican senators who employed me.

I saw at close hand how immediately after the Sept. 11 terror attacks the Senate dramatically increased the pork in defense spending bills. I also observed how the Senate's self-proclaimed "pork-buster," John McCain (R-Ariz.), sat on his parliamentary hands as other senators raided Pentagon accounts for combat training, weapon repairs and other war essentials to pay for the pork.
I have been eager to witness the end to -- or even a reduction of -- this atrocious system. Given what the Democrats have done so far this year, I'm going to have to wait some more.

Here's what they've done.

House Resolution 6, Pelosi's ballyhooed measure to reform earmarking and other abuses, permits any spending bill to be ruled "out of order" in the House (and therefore dead) unless it is accompanied by a list of all earmarks in the bill and its associated legislative materials. The identity of each earmark's congressional sponsor must be displayed along with "the name and address of the intended recipient" or "the intended location" of the earmark, its purpose and a certification that no member of Congress, or spouse, has any financial interest in the earmark. In other words, the reform seeks to shed sunshine on earmarks.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

The sunshine this measure sheds is more deceptive than illuminating. That's because each earmark description, and all the associated information, is to be supplied not by an objective entity, but by the earmark's congressional sponsor. In other words, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) will be allowed to explain without fear of contradiction why his brown tree snake eradication program should be added to the defense budget. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) can articulate every reason the Boeing Co. has fed him for why another four-star general needs a new VIP aircraft.

Inouye will not be required to explain that his snake eradication program really belongs in a domestic spending bill (if any objective auditor were to determine it is an effective program), and Murtha will not be required to divulge that he, along with other members of Congress, can also fly in that fancy new executive jet.

These lawmakers -- and all other congressional porkers -- would be crazy not to comply with the new "anti-pork" reforms. They are nothing less than free advertising.

There's more. The second step in the Democrats' earmarking reform occurs in the first appropriations bill they passed in the House after coming to power. This measure is the "continuing resolution" to fund most of the government for the current fiscal year. Last year, in a shameless abdication of responsibility, the Republicans failed to enact appropriations for any federal agency except the departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Instead, they put the rest of the government onto "stopgap" spending. The Democrats quite sensibly -- and rather quickly -- put together the continuing resolution. They even added a special provision, Section 112, which they said explicitly eliminates earmarks.

The devil, however, is in the details. What they eliminated with one hand they restored with the other. For example, Section 20203 (2) of the measure that "explicitly eliminates earmarks" added three earmarks to the defense budget: $217.5 million for three research projects for breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. That's right, cancer research in the defense budget. Democrats and Republicans have been plugging nondefense cancer research earmarks into Pentagon spending for years; 2007 is no exception.

Worse, the Democrats' continuing resolution failed to do anything about the earmarks they and the Republicans added last September to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, now in effect. This statute contains thousands of earmarks costing several billion dollars. The money to pay for them is not added to increase the spending in the bill; instead, and as usual, Congress raided training, weapons maintenance and other accounts to pay for the lawmakers' pork. None of that is undone.

On close inspection, the continuing resolution's "elimination" of earmarks has a strange ring to it. It says that all earmarks in 2006 appropriations measures "shall have no legal effect" for the new 2007 bill. That's a strange way to eliminate spending. Why not simply remove the funding, thereby making the earmark physically impossible to continue into fiscal 2007?

Moreover, because most earmarks simply are mere lines in committee reports and have "no legal effect" to begin with, they are enforced by the retribution that legislators can impose on agencies reluctant to follow their "friendly advice" on how money should be spent.

The impenetrable language in the continuing resolution raises questions about how many members of Congress are quietly contacting federal agencies and offering more "friendly advice" on how to spend the money made available for projects for which there is no -- strictly speaking -- "legal" requirement, but which the Appropriations Committee explicitly endorsed.

The Democrats' new reforms to eliminate earmarks do no such thing. They provide free advertising for congressional porkers, permit thousands of earmarks in 2007 Pentagon spending, add a few new ones and talk around the continuation of last year's earmarks in nondefense agencies' budgets into the new year.

This isn't just a few typical congressional loopholes in a bill -- it's an insult to Swiss cheese.

Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. He spent 30 years working for Democratic and Republican senators and the Government Accountability Office on national security issues. He is author of "The Wastrels of Defense: How Congress Sabotages U.S. Security" (U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2004).




The Dems are doing a lovely job, eh?

I like your article. I didn't know the Dems were even trying to fix earmarks....yet. They need to go back to the drawing board.

Oh but yes the Dems are doing a better job than the Repubs.

Man you are so partisan that it's ridiculous. In a thread about how the prescription drug benefit came about you bring up an entire article about earmarks (an informative one) but have to add that "the Dems are doing a lovely job" when your party is/was doing the shittiest of jobs.

It's the "he murdered someone but you jaywalked" bit.:lol:

Any words on the prescription drugs benefit?

And yes so much for the "liberal media". The intricacies of the earmarks weren't overplayed and neither was the great fuck-up of the prescription drug benefit.

Oh wait maybe you consider 60 Minutes, the liberal media. I did remember you saying they haven't done anything of note for years. 60 Minutes did spotlight the a Republican piece of legislation albeit muuuuch later.

You've been missing a great show....on every Sunday.

[j2k4]

Oh but yes the Dems are doing a better job than the Repubs.

The Republicans did not distinguish themselves in any way during their time in power. They were entirely typical of the specie "politician" that disgusts observant citizens every day.

To say though that the Dems are doing a better job is a bit of a stretch

Man you are so partisan that it's ridiculous.

Wherever would you have gotten the idea I was not partisan?

On the other hand, I have witnessed you defending many things that are "ridiculous", such as, oh, let's see...the public school system.

Now that's ridiculous.

[Busyman™]

Oh but yes the Dems are doing a better job than the Repubs.

The Republicans did not distinguish themselves in any way during their time in power. They were entirely typical of the specie "politician" that disgusts observant citizens every day.

To say though that the Dems are doing a better job is a bit of a stretch

Man you are so partisan that it's ridiculous.

Wherever would you have gotten the idea I was not partisan?

On the other hand, I have witnessed you defending many things that are "ridiculous", such as, oh, let's see...the public school system.

Now that's ridiculous.

Yes you being partisan is one of your downfalls. It makes you utterly illogical in many instances.

For instance, a partisan person defends their party even when they are completely wrong.

Oh I haven't defended the public school system. I said that vouchers would weaken it and probably throw it into oblivion. It's a way of privatising schools, all schools. Good for the business world, eh?

All public schools aren't bad. All private schools aren't good. They are just...well...private.

The Republicans not distinguishing themselves wasn't their problem. They were basically criminal yet guess what...down the party lines, they still get support from folks like yourself.

Your party's tenure has been the shittiest that I have seen in my adult years.

Honestly.

This is coming from a person who has his own mind and is not partisan (as my positions on many issues have shown).

If the Democrats fuck up I'll say something about it. It's just after hearing about how bad Clinton was from Republicans, right now they need a little less talking and a little more STFU.

Unless you are a politician, being partisan about everything makes you illogical straight out the gate. A politician can be an obvious suck ass but because one is partisan to the end, they'd cheer them on like some brainless nimrod.

It's possible that I'd vote for a Republican. If we can survive Bush and these years of huge fuck-ups, I doubt anyone can do worse.:mellow:

[vidcc]

Senators Now Decrying ‘Pork’ Voted To Approve ‘Railroad To Nowhere’

Because Americans strongly back a timeline to redeploy from Iraq, conservatives have focused their opposition to the recently-passed Iraq redeployment legislation on the domestic spending that’s attached:

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “They used this serious effort, what should have been a serious effort to fund the troops as an opportunity…to get pork for various and sordid products back home.”

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “So why are we going through this exercise of heaping pork on the backs of our men and women in uniform and trying to put artificial dates which will not occur?”

We know this isn’t true. Just last year, these same conservatives endorsed the emergency supplemental bill that included $15 billion in domestic spending, including “$4 billion for farmers, $1.1 billion for Gulf Coast fisheries, and $1 billion in grants to states.”

The bill also included the notorious $700 million Railroad to Nowhere in Mississippi, reportedly the largest earmark ever, sponsored by Senate Minority Whip Lott. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced an amendment aimed at eliminating Lott’s egregious pork project, but it was defeated. Fully 18 senators who last week opposed the Iraq spending bill — including Minority Leader McConnell and Minority Whip Lott — voted last year to preserve the Railroad to Nowhere.

Here’s a list of the Senators who (1) voted to kill the Coburn amendment and (2) voted for the pork-filled bill in 2006, but (3) voted against the 2007 Iraq supplemental:

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

Conservatives are complaining about “pork” now to distract from their real problem with the Iraq legislation: the fact that it forces President Bush to change course. These senators want to give Bush a blank check to wage a war without end; they just don’t want to admit it to their constituents.

Yes political games are played by both sides.....what's your point?

[Busyman™]

Senators Now Decrying ‘Pork’ Voted To Approve ‘Railroad To Nowhere’

Because Americans strongly back a timeline to redeploy from Iraq, conservatives have focused their opposition to the recently-passed Iraq redeployment legislation on the domestic spending that’s attached:

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “They used this serious effort, what should have been a serious effort to fund the troops as an opportunity…to get pork for various and sordid products back home.”

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “So why are we going through this exercise of heaping pork on the backs of our men and women in uniform and trying to put artificial dates which will not occur?”

We know this isn’t true. Just last year, these same conservatives endorsed the emergency supplemental bill that included $15 billion in domestic spending, including “$4 billion for farmers, $1.1 billion for Gulf Coast fisheries, and $1 billion in grants to states.”

The bill also included the notorious $700 million Railroad to Nowhere in Mississippi, reportedly the largest earmark ever, sponsored by Senate Minority Whip Lott. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced an amendment aimed at eliminating Lott’s egregious pork project, but it was defeated. Fully 18 senators who last week opposed the Iraq spending bill — including Minority Leader McConnell and Minority Whip Lott — voted last year to preserve the Railroad to Nowhere.

Here’s a list of the Senators who (1) voted to kill the Coburn amendment and (2) voted for the pork-filled bill in 2006, but (3) voted against the 2007 Iraq supplemental:

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX)
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

Conservatives are complaining about “pork” now to distract from their real problem with the Iraq legislation: the fact that it forces President Bush to change course. These senators want to give Bush a blank check to wage a war without end; they just don’t want to admit it to their constituents.

Yes political games are played by both sides.....what's your point?

His point was "he murdered someone but you jaywalked".

His point was to attack Democrats.

However, I do wish that if they are going to get rid of earmarks (originally spearheaded by 1 lone Republican I might add) that they'd not fuck around and just do it...the right way.

[vidcc]

I think once pay as you go kicks in then a lot of those earmarks will disappear.

I think it's hilarious that Pelosi is being attacked for going to syria, not one word about the republics that went there and are going there. It appears the white house even helped one republican visit.

I think it funny how pelosi is being attacked for wearing a headscarf while there, saying she should refuse..........not one word about Laura Bush wearing one when she visited a mosque.

I think it's funny that Bush is the one threatening to refuse to accept the funding he requested and is being given (and then some) using pork as an excuse when the last emergency bills contained more pork, took twice the time to be passed in congress and he praised congress (obviously a republican congress) for doing their duty.

Bush who hasn't vetoed one pork laden spending bill in his entire time in office is prepared to leave the troops in harms way without funds because of pork.....playing politics


As I said games are played, mountains are made out of molehills then the mountaineers cry foul when the same thing happens to them.


Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised "the most ethical Congress ever." One abuse being addressed is "earmarking" --

Tell me were most ethical ever means no ethic violations will ever happen again, tell me were addressing earmarking means ending it altogether. Some earmarks are valid.

[Busyman™]

I think once pay as you go kicks in then a lot of those earmarks will disappear.

I think it's hilarious that Pelosi is being attacked for going to syria, not one word about the republics that went there and are going there. It appears the white house even helped one republican visit.

I think it funny how pelosi is being attacked for wearing a headscarf while there, saying she should refuse..........not one word about Laura Bush wearing one when she visited a mosque.

I think it's funny that Bush is the one threatening to refuse to accept the funding he requested and is being given (and then some) using pork as an excuse when the last emergency bills contained more pork, took twice the time to be passed in congress and he praised congress (obviously a republican congress) for doing their duty.

Bush who hasn't vetoed one pork laden spending bill in his entire time in office is prepared to leave the troops in harms way without funds because of pork.....playing politics


As I said games are played, mountains are made out of molehills then the mountaineers cry foul when the same thing happens to them.


Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised "the most ethical Congress ever." One abuse being addressed is "earmarking" --

Tell me were most ethical ever means no ethic violations will ever happen again, tell me were addressing earmarking means ending it altogether. Some earmarks are valid.

Like what? Ones actually related to a bill or one's that give a concession to a state because the bill harms that state.....

or.

Money for a state lemonade stand (located within a Iraq funding bill):blink:

[vidcc]

well this was an emergency spending bill, so earmarks that the republicans punted such as aid arising from katrina for example could be added. Emergency spending bills are IMO different to the ordinary kind and therefore more open to things that would otherwise have no place.
this is not to say that I agree with all pork or for that matter most pork


Of course some people think that victims of such disasters should get no help, or that no project is worthy of federal help, so the validity of any earmark will always be questioned.

The funny thing is many that complain about pork for projects in the US don't see money for projects in Iraq as pork.

[j2k4]

Yes you being partisan is one of your downfalls. It makes you utterly illogical in many instances.

You can think what you like about my partisanship; it applies to my conservative beliefs only, though you mistakenly extend it to all Republicans.

For instance, a partisan person defends their party even when they are completely wrong.

Sorry, you just shot yourself in the foot.

You imply I support Republicans in all instances.

You are wrong, and you know it, but your liberal side tells you nonetheless that to make such an overstep is acceptable from a tactical point-of-view, and no one will notice you've fucked up.

Oh I haven't defended the public school system. I said that vouchers would weaken it and probably throw it into oblivion. It's a way of privatising schools, all schools. Good for the business world, eh?

To attack vouchers is to be against effective education.

Public education fails because it has no competition.

You are too young to remember the bad old days when Ma Bell was your only option for telephonic communication (which fact is terribly ironic), and it is only the explosion of competition the industry has undergone which has provided you with what is (apparently) a reasonably good living.

You don't have to take my word for it, either; ask someone in your business who has, say, 35 years in the field.

They'll tell you how it was.

The greatest achievements of the first five decades of your business were the slimline phone and touch-tone dialing.

For most of that time, you couldn't even buy a telephone that wasn't black.

All public schools aren't bad. All private schools aren't good. They are just...well...private.

One public school may indeed be better than the next, but the sad fact is that when judged against the rest of the world, ALL U.S. public schools suck.

The Republicans not distinguishing themselves wasn't their problem. They were basically criminal yet guess what...down the party lines, they still get support from folks like yourself.

Support how?

A bad Republican is still better than a bad Democrat.

My opinion, of course.

Your party's tenure has been the shittiest that I have seen in my adult years.

But then, you haven't been an adult very long, and you still worship Al and Jesse.

Honestly.

This is coming from a person who has his own mind and is not partisan (as my positions on many issues have shown).

So you subscribe to a sort of political Kama Sutra?

If you actually do have your "own mind", your views will change in time.

I promise.

If the Democrats fuck up I'll say something about it. It's just after hearing about how bad Clinton was from Republicans, right now they need a little less talking and a little more STFU.

Time will tell as to your first; as to the rest, when you tell anyone at all to "STFU", you really ought to give a bit more thought to what you are saying.

Unless you are a politician, being partisan about everything makes you illogical straight out the gate. A politician can be an obvious suck ass but because one is partisan to the end, they'd cheer them on like some brainless nimrod.

Alright.

Provide evidence that I am "partisan about everything".

Do it now.

It's possible that I'd vote for a Republican. If we can survive Bush and these years of huge fuck-ups, I doubt anyone can do worse.:mellow:

It is even possible I'd vote for a Democrat; I had given some thought to whether I could vote (for example) for someone like Jim Webb.

Unfortunately, he's been pretty wishy-washy about the gun thing recently, and done himself damage, in my eye.

[Busyman™]

Damn you are the clueless white guy.

First off you attack Dems over something unrelated in a thread about the prescription drug benefit then gotta go racial (yet again) by grouping me with whateverthefuck blacks and saying I worship Al and Jesse.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I guess you worship G.W. Bush, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, David Duke, and the Confederate flag.

[j2k4]

Damn you are the clueless white guy.
First off you attack Dems over something unrelated in a thread about the prescription drug benefit then gotta go racial (yet again) by grouping me with whateverthefuck blacks and saying I worship Al and Jesse.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I guess you worship G.W. Bush, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, David Duke, and the Confederate flag.

Wtf?

I merely pointed out that you are at least as fond of the two Revs as I am of, say, Bush, right?

Do you see your mistake, now.



One more thing:

Your racial blather saves you responding to my post, doesn't it.

Well done, you can't see the forest for the trees.

[Busyman™]

Damn you are the clueless white guy.
First off you attack Dems over something unrelated in a thread about the prescription drug benefit then gotta go racial (yet again) by grouping me with whateverthefuck blacks and saying I worship Al and Jesse.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I guess you worship G.W. Bush, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, David Duke, and the Confederate flag.

Wtf?

I merely pointed out that you are at least as fond of the two Revs as I am of, say, Bush, right?

Do you see your mistake, now.



One more thing:

Your racial blather saves you responding to my post, doesn't it.

Well done, you can't see the forest for the trees.
You always fuck up your posts when you go with that "brother" shit.

This ain't the furst.:ermm: Oh and nice try on trying to make your racial remark seem like there was some deeper meaning.

[vidcc]

republicans filibustered the bill that will allow negotiation on drug prices :dry:

Another Item

The Senate was considering a bill that would require Senate candidate to file campaign finance reports electronically, like House candidates, which would be easier to search and add transparency to the system. It was going to pass — right up until someone put a secret hold on the bill.

Whichever party this person belongs to he/she needs to be exposed. :dry:

[Busyman™]

republicans filibustered the bill that will allow negotiation on drug prices :dry:

Another Item

The Senate was considering a bill that would require Senate candidate to file campaign finance reports electronically, like House candidates, which would be easier to search and add transparency to the system. It was going to pass — right up until someone put a secret hold on the bill.

Whichever party this person belongs to he/she needs to be exposed. :dry:

I love the commercials saying that negotiating prices was a bad move.

What kind of Twilight Zone/Bizarro World are Republicans living on?

If watch the 60 Minutes piece, it shows that the VA benefits have these negotiations.:ermm: