specifically hypocritical no! procedurally hypocritical yes and I didnt see where you specified that. My bad. I would point to the patriot act.
As bad as the previous administration and Congress may have been on certain issues, the current administration and Congress have seemed to even go farther in enacting horrible legislation with less bipartisanship and at a greater expense than the previous. If the last adminstration goes down in history as poor...where will this one land as they're repeating the previous at an accelerated pace and with a long-term negative impact ($$$) attached? It's obvious the WORST Congress ever needs to be replaced immediately. The jury may still be out on the administration (maybe it can be improved if the House or Senate don't belong to the Democrits) but at this point it's not looking good for a second term. I had hoped to never see another Jimmy Carter in the White House but we've got one. :dis: Bush I said...read my lips, no new taxes and it bit him in the rear. Obama said...let's aire this on C-Span so the public knows what the real issues are yet everything is locked behind partisan doors. What are you hiding?
:rofl: You must be too smart for me because I have no idea what that means. I wasn't specifically hipocritical but I was procedurally hipocritical? Please explain that to me. And the patriot act did not pass the house and senate along party lines for sure and I don't know about the House/Senate reconciliation although it seems likely normal procedure was bypassed due to extenuating circumstances. Nevertheless, it won by wide margins with support by both Dems and Repubs in both house and senate so it doesn't qualify. I still stand behind my statement and await an example of its inaccuracy. If you can't tell, I don't take being called a hypocrite lightly, especially by someone I respect. So if you plan on taking that route, you better be able to back it up.
If we are specifically talking about a bill of this magnitude then no your not being hypocritical and I didnt see where you specified that you were talking about the size and implications of this legislation. Procedurally yes, you are being a bit of a hypocrite because republicans have done this before. I mention the patriot act as a possible equal piece of legislation of this magnitude. not that hard to understand really.;-)
That tells me nothing. I've never represented myself as anything but a staunch conservative. How have I been hypocritical? You can't just toss out that grenade and run. Which exists even today.
No, but if they wanted to be a stakeholder, they would not have walked in partisan lock-step in opposition. They demanded changes, got them, and still refused to get on board. They took themselves out of it. It's not going to be done in secret, its just going to be done by the people that have an interest in negotiating compromises that make it better instead of making it worse for political reasons. You have the same voice you always have, through your elected representatives. Elections have consequences. Bush damn well had it his way with a republican congress and their failures got them put out of power by We The People. Obama takes the same risk and if he fails you can put him out of office. That is the American way. Why don't you? The house and senate bills are public record and they have been discussed in the media.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE] im not so sure about that. ive been looking into it and the best guess is that it will be in secret. evidently it doesnt have to be and even the bypassed formal conference could be in secret too. also this is not unprecedented for major and/or contentious bills. havent found examples yet though.
