Speak Out: Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) votes for cloture on Jobs Bill, along with Kit Bond

Posted by voyager on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, at 8:33 PM:

Yes, what is your point, Ike. Heh doesn't say anything, except maybe by innuendo but nothing with clarity.

Replies (25)

  • What Ike meant to say was "heh, heh, heh".

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, at 8:35 PM
  • Oh, OK. That makes it very clear, Lumpy

    -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Feb 22, 2010, at 11:32 PM
  • Isn't that super, Ike ... a Republican voting for a bill considered to be Democratic?

    Unfortunately, I keep seeing that the Democrats keep wanting bi-partisanship but only from Republicans ...

    So ... I keep waiting for the non-partisanship that Obama keeps insisting on, to rub off on our Democrat representatives. That's a fair concept, isn't it?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 12:11 AM
  • Didn't Obama just propose a healthcare bill that took out a lot of stuff republicans didn't want? Or will you won't see Bi-partisanship when it makes your guy look good?

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 8:32 AM
  • Mom, another of your usual brilliant observations. And brevity too!

    -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 8:52 AM
  • Good for Brown and Bond. Now let's have a good debate and pick this bill apart. Deliberate and decide - bravely. Missouri lawmakers, where do you stand - we are watching.

    -- Posted by blogbudsman on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 9:02 AM
  • Keep your eye on Rubio down in Miami. This could be another coming out of nowhere situations.

    I still favor Mitt Romney as of now. I do not care for Palin. But things will begin heat up next year for the 2012 race, A lot can happen (and will) between now and then. The results of the 2010 mid term elections will have a great influence.

    -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 9:44 AM
  • Yes, Ike. I voted for Goldwater and have never forgiven the press, the Democrats or LBJ for their shabby treatment of Goldwater.

    Just as the Democrats need a good cleaning and cleansing, so do the Republicans maybe even more so if for no other reason they should have known better!

    Yes, we shall wait and see about Brown.

    -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 10:57 AM
  • Ike, gonna take issue with you. Don't throw them under the bus. The underpinning could be damaged.

    Better more like the Russians. Throw them over the back of the troika to the pursuing hungry wolves. The troika ain't damage, is lighter, and can go faster. The wolves, of course, benefit by getting a good meal. (They can stomach anything).

    Sounds logical to me!

    -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 12:07 PM
  • How about that, voyager ... brevity! Know you must be proud of me for being able to do that, but ... It was just a fluke; I must have been brain-weary. One of my problems is ... I don't keep up very well, and catching up means lengthy?

    Think so, futile ... however, also believe there was more put in at some point? Read this week that the 'bill' is over 4,000 pages now! Is that ridiculous, or not?

    How about reducing it to, say, 200-300 pages ... One that just covers people who absolutely cannot afford health insurance, but don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare ... one that the people and even our leaders could honestly say they read and understood? The number I seem to recall is now something like 30 million? The entire population of this country does not need, or want, this health bill, at least not in its entirety. It's a political bill (you might have to reason that out), meant primarily to help some companies, abuse some companies, restrict some companies (adding up to more government control), and give politicians a boost during the next elections (you know, before it would actually go into effect so few would realize how flawed it is).

    I like Romney, too, for the most part. Don't know enough really to form opinions of Brown or Rubio yet. Sadly enough (to me) is the fact that the party (parties) more or less chooses who we end up with (i.e., who they'll support), and apparently they tolerate no 'middle ground of thought' from the possible candidates. Guess my problem is I really don't accept well the idea of anyone dictating what someone else's religious or personal beliefs should or should not be.

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Feb 23, 2010, at 6:13 PM
  • gurusmom, there are very few political bills that aren't "meant primarily to help some companies, abuse some companies, restrict some companies (adding up to more government control), and give politicians a boost during the next elections "

    You could probably count them on one hand. Nor do I like that fact, and I do have a problem with this type of behavior, however I have a problem with people on one side of the isle (doesn't matter which one) who complains about the others pork when their plate is full to.

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 2:28 AM
  • Good for you, futile ... I think 'pork' should be totally eliminated, in favor of returning a percentage of collected income tax to each state. I doubt it's a 'party' issue, but certainly could be wrong. I think we all just really want our government to spend our hard-earned money a lot more wisely than they do.

    I just sort of wish our federal government (well, heck, all our governments) would start listening more to the majority and less to the 'special interest' groups. Also don't think our tax dollars should be given to organizations of any kind ... those entities should be funded privately. Sure, that might mean they don't get enough 'donations' to operate ... but perhaps that might mean they shouldn't be in 'business' in the first place?

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 3:27 AM
  • Rick apparently then would prefer any issue clarified by means of prevaricacations (our good friend Ike has a frequently used but blunter word for it)?

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 8:37 AM
  • That should be "prevarications", **** it.

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 8:57 AM
  • 2009 pork report:

    Democrats - 4634 records of pork proposals totaling $4,757,000,000

    Republicans - 3034 records $3,321,000,000

    221 anonymous earmarks worth $7.8 billion

    2008:

    Democrat: 5199 records $5,453,000,000

    Republican: 3408 $4,383,000,000

    the website doesn't break down the years before this by party, However, the years with the most pork spent 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 (all which have more spent than 2009 which has a lot of the stimulus package pork in it) have been in republican controlled congress. Even with the stim package there was

    -- Posted by futile_rant on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 9:20 AM
  • "Where's the beef?"

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 10:22 AM
  • Re: Pork spending by Democrats and Republicans. A Pox on both of their houses. Looks like Democrats had more pork than the Republicans each year. Well, so...

    It sorta like the gal who finally has to admit she is pregnant. "But not much, now! Jus' a little bit, mind you, jus' a little bit!"

    Now go do some thinking by facing reality, people.

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 11:29 AM
  • Ike, you make a good point, but Brown may not be as bad as Coakley is sure to have been.

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 11:52 AM
  • Ike, you may be right, but if he's the 41st vote to break the 60 vote super majority, frankly I don't care at this point if he's the Devil's assistant.

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 2:44 PM
  • Well, Ike, I can't speak for the MA voters of whatever persuasion. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't his abbreviated term run until 2012? At least until 2010 he can be a small but important break upon Reid and Pelosi's merry band of mischief makers. Logically, the mid term elections will most likely change the mix given the announced number of those incumbents who will not be running again. Mid term elections usually result in loses for the party in power. Usually, Ike, not always but usually.

    So the important issue is getting through until November. After that, its anyone's guess.

    IF, your big IF, it goes very badly for the Democrats, the day after the election Obama stands a mighty chance of being a Lame Duck president. Even under the best of circumstances, his re-election "ain't gonna be no cakewalk."

    By the way, off subject, you ever been to a cakewalk? Sorta like doing the Paul Jones with a cake as the prize instead.

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 6:21 PM
  • Why can't I catch my errors no matter how often I recheck before posting. That should be "brake" instead of "break".

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 6:24 PM
  • Your coveted 41st vote may be a moot point.

    Squirm baby, squirm.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 6:41 PM
  • History shall relate, Lumpy.

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 6:45 PM
  • Well, Ike means well, Wiff.

    -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 7:46 PM
  • gurusmom

    please don't mixfuse me with the facts....

    -- Posted by *Rick* on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 6:59 AM

    Uh oh ... sorry, Rick! ~laughing~ Actually, everybody surely knows I'm fairly short on facts, but long on opinion.

    Okay, futile ... What the heck are "anonymous earmarks?"

    BTW: Happy to 'recognize' you, Wiff!

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Feb 24, 2010, at 11:20 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: