that sounds like a reworded version of something else that someone from a different political party said about another controversial bill as it was going thru congress a few years back...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/11/paul-ryans-pelosi-esque-obamatrade-moment-its-declassified-and-made-public-once-its-agreed-to/
this is just more proof that they are all the same in DC... i'd love to go find clips of Paul Ryan tearing into Nancy Pelosi during the Obamacare thing for her "we need to pass it before we can see what's in it" comments, but i'm sure the Daily Show staffers are all over it as we speak..
tuna55
UltimaDork
6/11/15 1:09 p.m.
Good call. This is bull and they all know it. Please note Rand Paul is the only presidential candidate on the republican side who said 'no' to this in the senate. Bernie Sanders and O' Malley also agreed with that point of view.
What are we talking about?
fixed it.. the link that i put in disappeared when i posted it for some reason.. so it's fixed, for now...
Rand Paul must not really be a presidential candidate, because they never show him with all the people that are running for president on tv..
No one should ever be surprised when sheit comes out of aholes
tuna55
UltimaDork
6/11/15 1:16 p.m.
bgkast wrote:
What are we talking about?
President Obama wants to do a bunch of trade deals that appear, to opponents, more like treaties, and are secret except for select members of congress and their staff.
He wants to get TPA passed, which is called "fast track". As I understand it, this reduces the approval required from 60% to 50% in congress, and removes the ability for congress to amend the bill before they pass it.
George W Bush had fast track powers and a number of people on the left thought it was an over-reach of the executive branch. I agree that it is.
Let's see the trade deal, discuss it, and have a real vote on it. If it's a treaty instead, let's vote on it like a treaty, which is even more stringent.
tuna55
UltimaDork
6/11/15 1:17 p.m.
novaderrik wrote:
Rand Paul must not really be a presidential candidate, because they never show him with all the people that are running for president on tv..
I love posting this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw
Also shows how the media are all reading the same script.
TPP.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-10/profits-over-public-health-big-pharma-revealed-puppetmaster-behind-tpp-secrecy
Plus every other Big Something. Big Immigration, Big Import. Big Export. Big Whatever. I really like the part about an appointed international board deciding American law going forward. That part is just fantastic. Think how much more efficient we'll be when South Americans or whoever else is in that treaty tell us how we are going to manage our free speech, guns and taxes.
Why are some of the Republicans and Obama pushing this? And what treaty ever needed to be secret from the American people? Especially a "trade" treaty?
tuna55 wrote:
novaderrik wrote:
Rand Paul must not really be a presidential candidate, because they never show him with all the people that are running for president on tv..
I love posting this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtDJ6Ay4QMw
Also shows how the media are all reading the same script.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/gop-debate-ii/n13239
They say it needs to be kept secret to keep lobbyists from interfering...you know, the same lobbyists that basically wrote the thing.
uh oh...political thread...I'm out.
tuna55
UltimaDork
6/11/15 3:07 p.m.
Actually this isn't political (meaning flounder worthy). Yet.
T.J.
UltimaDork
6/11/15 4:06 p.m.
BOHICA.
That's all I have to say about this.
This ought to bring the One World Government guys out of the woodwork in a full lather.
novaderrik wrote:
Rand Paul must not really be a presidential candidate, because they never show him with all the people that are running for president on tv..
I remember Jon Stewart doing a bit on that with Ron Paul.
Too bad you can't pass a law affecting those clowns without going through them because this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want a constitutional amendment requiring every bill to be read out loud on the floor of Congress by whoever is sponsoring it. If you can't read it out loud, in public, without taking a break or getting help than it's too complicated or shady to be a law.
oldopelguy wrote:
Too bad you can't pass a law affecting those clowns without going through them because this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want a constitutional amendment requiring every bill to be read out loud on the floor of Congress by whoever is sponsoring it. If you can't read it out loud, in public, without taking a break or getting help than it's too complicated or shady to be a law.
The original bailout bill was sent back for only being a few pages the first time.
racerdave600 wrote:
oldopelguy wrote:
Too bad you can't pass a law affecting those clowns without going through them because this is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want a constitutional amendment requiring every bill to be read out loud on the floor of Congress by whoever is sponsoring it. If you can't read it out loud, in public, without taking a break or getting help than it's too complicated or shady to be a law.
Agreed!!!!!
or you are too stupid to be in charge of anything more complicated than a good pair of shoes?
tuna55 wrote:
Actually this isn't political (meaning flounder worthy). Yet.
yeah, so far both sides seem to be getting hammered … (and deservedly so) lets keep it this way ..
Bullets for all the things.
Drudge is saying that this was defeated in congress, and that Pelosi led the charge to defeat it. i'm too lazy to click on any of the links they put up because screw it, it's friday and it's my weekend.
is this what bipartisanship looks like?
