|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:27 PM Original message |
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH! Now the freakin' Senate is going to attach the Line Item Veto |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AX10
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:28 PM Response to Original message |
1. If you ask me, "Line Item Veto" in |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LSK
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM Response to Reply #1 |
13. wasnt it ruled so in the 90s? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC Liberal
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM Response to Reply #1 |
16. If you ask the Supreme Court, they said the exact same thing. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:40 PM Response to Reply #16 |
24. Then what happens if they pass the freakin' thing? It goes back to court? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:52 PM Response to Reply #24 |
33. Hopefully it's been written to pass constitutionality issues. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jackpine Radical
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:06 PM Response to Reply #33 |
36. Also, it's a different court, loaded with Bushies & kowtowers to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:19 PM Response to Reply #36 |
42. THAT'S my fear. Scalito and Roberts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
zbdent
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:23 PM Response to Reply #1 |
44. Like that would stop a Repuke ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Richard Steele
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:28 PM Response to Original message |
2. That's some very Liebermanesque 'bipartisanship' right there. nm |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LSparkle
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:29 PM Response to Original message |
3. THEY WENT FOR IT???????? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:32 PM Response to Reply #3 |
9. Reid's excuse is he doesn't think the repukes will vote for the minimum wage increase. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
redqueen
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM Original message |
So what? Let them vote against it! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eleny
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:29 PM Response to Original message |
4. But didn't W say he was going to sign the Minimum Wage Bill? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AndyA
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:29 PM Response to Original message |
5. WTF? Where did you hear this?? Source??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM Response to Reply #5 |
12. CNN. The Situation Room with Wolfie. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:30 PM Response to Original message |
6. Relax, they'll probably just cut it out in conference committee |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eleny
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:32 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. Keep reminding us! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ignacio Upton
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM Response to Reply #6 |
15. Will the Republicans be allowed to participate in the conference committee? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:02 PM Response to Reply #15 |
35. Senate Republicans will, yes, I'm not sure about House Republicans |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:26 PM Response to Reply #35 |
47. I think Reid said it would be a public committee meeting WITH the House. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BayCityProgressive
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:35 PM Response to Reply #6 |
19. If they do this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tigereye
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:41 PM Response to Reply #19 |
27. um |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bobbie Jo
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:31 PM Response to Original message |
7. Why in the hell did they cave ? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
redqueen
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:32 PM Response to Original message |
10. Why does he need it, with the way he abuses Signing Statements? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rosemary2205
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:32 PM Response to Original message |
11. even if it passed that woudl send it back to the house |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LSparkle
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:37 PM Response to Reply #11 |
21. Absolutely -- Pelosi DEFINITELY wears the pants in this Congress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:41 PM Response to Reply #21 |
25. Yeah, but we won't get the minimum wage increase either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LSparkle
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:44 PM Response to Reply #25 |
30. And that's an OUTRAGE ... that was one of the "6 for '06" promises |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:45 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. Me too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bill McBlueState
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:33 PM Response to Original message |
14. you mean the one the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
derby378
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:34 PM Response to Original message |
17. Please don't tell me the "100 hours" just ground to a halt... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aquart
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:38 PM Response to Reply #17 |
22. Stop that, Chicken Little. Right now! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
katsy
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:39 PM Response to Reply #17 |
23. This is the Senate. No "100 hours" promises to keep. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
derby378
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:18 PM Response to Reply #23 |
41. Okay, okay, my bad... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AndyA
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:34 PM Response to Original message |
18. You know, this kind of BULLSHIT needs to stop. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ignacio Upton
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:36 PM Response to Reply #18 |
20. Relax, we still have conference committee |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pab Sungenis
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:41 PM Response to Reply #20 |
26. Didn't the new Pelosi-backed rules in the House |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:43 PM Response to Reply #26 |
28. Right. In the House there were NO AMMENDMENTS. Not so in the Senate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cass
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:10 PM Response to Reply #26 |
39. Good point. I thought this kind of thing wasn't going to be allowed anymore. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dems Will Win
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:43 PM Response to Reply #20 |
29. That's correct. Then the Rs would have to filibuster for the Line Item Veto |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
applegrove
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:51 PM Response to Original message |
32. The way you Americans pass laws is too complicated. That's all. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:20 PM Response to Reply #32 |
43. LOL! I know! It's crazy as hell and more difficult to understand than it needs to be. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 04:54 PM Response to Original message |
34. Yeah I hear they want to kill the bill. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cass
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:07 PM Response to Original message |
37. Playing games with the Minimum Wage Bill really ticks me off. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
meldroc
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:08 PM Response to Original message |
38. Think we can bring back the physical filibuster? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:24 PM Response to Reply #38 |
45. I remember those days. They had to stand there for HOURS filibustering. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bluedog
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:12 PM Response to Original message |
40. lest they forget: Democratic President in 2009 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tritsofme
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:25 PM Response to Reply #40 |
46. The GOP Congress gave Clinton a line-item veto in 1996 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
in_cog_ni_to
![]() |
Thu Jan-18-07 05:28 PM Response to Reply #46 |
48. The LAST person who should have this power is the psycho-in-chief. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sat Sep 07th 2024, 06:54 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC