To: nancyvideo
two of the most skilled purveyors of federal funds,Geez, can you sugar coat it a little more?
2 posted on
09/01/2006 6:19:08 AM PDT by
SlowBoat407
(I've had it with these &%#@* jihadis on these &%#@* planes!)
To: nancyvideo
LOL! Remember all those threads which predicted it would be Byrd?
3 posted on
09/01/2006 6:19:15 AM PDT by
Brilliant
To: nancyvideo
Surprise, surprise, surprise...
5 posted on
09/01/2006 6:20:01 AM PDT by
RebelBanker
(If you can't do something smart, do something right.)
To: nancyvideo
6 posted on
09/01/2006 6:21:27 AM PDT by
Grampa Dave
(There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic lies/wet dreams posing as news.)
To: nancyvideo
Don't you just love it when the parties work together?
7 posted on
09/01/2006 6:21:33 AM PDT by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: nancyvideo
Hey K-K-K-K-Byrd. There's also a Voting Rights amendment up for consideration. Maybe you want to put another *secret* hold on that one too. Jest lyke da olde days.
To: nancyvideo
It would seem the only thing both parties agree on is that big government is a good thing.
To: nancyvideo
You should know better than to put a story like this in Breaking News.
You just knocked "Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread" out of the top ten "Breaking News" stories of this Friday.
Shame on you.
To: nancyvideo
Vote them ALL out!
New blood every time and none of those scumbags like these will rule over America again!
12 posted on
09/01/2006 6:24:30 AM PDT by
TimesDomain
(When a judge declares himself "MASTER", you become his "SLAVE")
To: nancyvideo
Spend-happy hosers. Stevens should be ashamed - hah! I think he has none.
On the other hand, hats off to Sen. Coburn of Oklahoma. He is my kind of conservative.
To: nancyvideo
Further proof that here isn't enough difference between most Dems and Pubbies to shake a stick at.
They work more in cahoots than we care to admit.
15 posted on
09/01/2006 6:26:47 AM PDT by
TomGuy
To: nancyvideo
Despite lifting the hold, Byrd still wants the bill to be "debated and opened for amendment, and not pushed through without discussion," he said.
The mind boggles. I wonder what kind of amendments would be proposed for this bill. "Yes, I would like to amend the bill so that this website only be available to those on dial-up. We....uhh....don't want the server to get bogged down by all the broadbanders out there. Not enough tubes."
17 posted on
09/01/2006 6:28:43 AM PDT by
RippyO
To: nancyvideo
18 posted on
09/01/2006 6:28:55 AM PDT by
reagan_fanatic
(What Darwin denied he now regrets)
To: nancyvideo
Everyone should understand that a "hold" means nothing. In fact the hold doesn't exist in the Senate rules. It is simply an understanding between Senators that once a "hold" is put on a bill, it doesn't move. It is part of the country-club, hail-fellow-well-met world of Senators, where I suppose principle matters less than than making sure all the ol' boys stay cordial.
As I understand it, "holds" have been defied before. Exactly why the Republican leadership failed to defy Senator Byrd's hold I don't know.
To: nancyvideo
"secret hold"?
Yup....double secret hold.
20 posted on
09/01/2006 6:35:03 AM PDT by
markoman
(The man with the rubber glove was....surprisingly gentle.)
To: nancyvideo
So why can't the conservatives (or liberals) just adopt this as a routine strategy and put secret holds on all legislation they don't like that the opposition proposes?
30 posted on
09/01/2006 7:11:02 AM PDT by
ZGuy
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson