Who's the Masked Senator? - Page 7

Thorgrim · 09-01-2006, 01:21 AM

I almost wanted the "nuclear" showdown to happen so I could see Byrd use all his knowledge to completely grind the Senate to a halt

Stylerod · 09-01-2006, 08:06 AM

So it was a bipartisan double secret hold, huh? They both should be bitch slapped.

Thorgrim · 09-01-2006, 09:17 AM

thomez is no democrat partisan hack, you can say that about me, but not him

he's a @*&$^&#^$ and even he realizes Byrd is a really great senator, what does Stevens have to offer? His temper?

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 09:19 AM

that's hardly relevant now, isn't it?

Thorgrim · 09-01-2006, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

that's hardly relevant now, isn't it?

It's the very heart of the matter

thomez · 09-01-2006, 10:03 AM

the difference is, the beginning of this thread was about a secret hold on a bill for apparently no reason but for one senator to cover their ass

the details from the Byrd camp explained their actions and for that reason I don't blame either of them for doing whatever they could to stop the bill

passing legislation with no debate, discussion, possibility for amendment, or even the time to read it is not only a retarded practice it is a slap in the face to the American people

I don't know much about Stevens or his intentions here, but Byrd has spoke out time and again about bullshit congressional tactics of people doing things exactly like this

normally a bill has a totally sensible title, but guess what, they fucking all do - how about the USA Patriot Act - a true fucking patriot cringes every single time they hear it named

so we take this legislation which sounds just freakin peachy and slap it through in a way which should shame anyone who supports it and end up with laws, regulation, and other consequences of Congressional action which we didn't even know about

so thank you Mr. Stevens and Mr. Byrd, whatever your intentions, for fighting a congressional practice which slaps every voting american in the face and undermines any reason we sent these turds to Washington

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

the difference is, the beginning of this thread was about a secret hold on a bill for apparently no reason but for one senator to cover their ass

or so we all assumed. turns out they both had their reasons, and we were wrong.

the details from the Byrd camp explained their actions and for that reason I don't blame either of them for doing whatever they could to stop the bill

and the details from the stevens camp are meaningless, because you just plain don't believe them? well, at least you admitted you don't know much about him.

the response was still very skewed.

thomez · 09-01-2006, 10:08 AM

I never saw any response or reasoning from Stevens except unknown cost - which was laughable - since the amount was so small and he didn't mention the reason the cost was unknown; the fact that nobody had even read the bill yet.

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

unknown cost - which was laughable

to be more specific, he said 'unnecessay beaurocracy, which is hardly laughable, considering our government is so full of it already.

but that's my whole point, what's laughable to you may not be so laughable to someone else. and what's important to you may just be laughable to someone else. either way, the response was very skewed.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

I never saw any response or reasoning from Stevens except unknown cost - which was laughable

It's because transparency isn't a dump truck. It's a series of tubes. He just wanted to make sure everyone knew that.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

to be more specific, he said 'unnecessay beaurocracy, which is hardly laughable, considering our government is so full of it already.

Yes, lets block something that is designed to keep the politicians from being crooks. That's unnecessary.

The bridge in Alaska however is vital.

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Yes, lets block something that is designed to keep the politicians from being crooks. That's unnecessary.

The bridge in Alaska however is vital.

i'm in no way defending blocking this bill

so you need to stop attacking me for such a thing right now.
i am however, against praising one senator over blocking it for 'his reasons' vs. bashing another for blocking it for 'his reasons'

Publius · 09-01-2006, 10:13 AM

b2w, i'm curious why you added my replies in your little quote-rant when both were against the Senators in question.

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

b2w, i'm curious why you added my replies in your little quote-rant when both were against the Senators in question.

to be fair, i had to include all replies

motivez · 09-01-2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

the difference is, the beginning of this thread was about a secret hold on a bill for apparently no reason but for one senator to cover their ass

the details from the Byrd camp explained their actions and for that reason I don't blame either of them for doing whatever they could to stop the bill

passing legislation with no debate, discussion, possibility for amendment, or even the time to read it is not only a retarded practice it is a slap in the face to the American people

I don't know much about Stevens or his intentions here, but Byrd has spoke out time and again about bullshit congressional tactics of people doing things exactly like this

normally a bill has a totally sensible title, but guess what, they fucking all do - how about the USA Patriot Act - a true fucking patriot cringes every single time they hear it named

so we take this legislation which sounds just freakin peachy and slap it through in a way which should shame anyone who supports it and end up with laws, regulation, and other consequences of Congressional action which we didn't even know about

so thank you Mr. Stevens and Mr. Byrd, whatever your intentions, for fighting a congressional practice which slaps every voting american in the face and undermines any reason we sent these turds to Washington

As far as I'm aware, there were plenty of hearings and even some votes on this in various committee's.. which is why Stevens was questioned since he never showed up for any of them, nor raised any concerns about it before placing his secret hold.

I don't know if the same is true for Byrd, but if it is he deserves the same level of scorn.

thomez · 09-01-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i am however, against praising one senator over blocking it for 'his reasons' vs. bashing another for blocking it for 'his reasons'

there is nothing wrong with agreeing with one party and not with another about the same end result but for different intentions

I could give many examples if you need that thought expanded.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i'm in no way defending blocking this bill so you need to stop attacking me for such a thing right now.

Huh? You said his reasons are hardly laughable. Sounds like you are defending it.

And I didn't attack you. Must be the voices again.

Publius · 09-01-2006, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

As far as I'm aware, there were plenty of hearings and even some votes on this in various committee's.. which is why Stevens was questioned since he never showed up for any of them, nor raised any concerns about it before placing his secret hold.

I don't know if the same is true for Byrd

This bill was in committee for quite a while, it isn't like a Senator hopped up 10 minutes before the end of the session and said, "hey guys, I've got this great idea on gov't transparency, let's vote on it now."

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

there is nothing wrong with agreeing with one party and not with another about the same end result but for different intentions

I could give many examples if you need that thought expanded.

oh i see

motivez · 09-01-2006, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

This bill was in committee for quite a while, it isn't like a Senator hopped up 10 minutes before the end of the session and said, "hey guys, I've got this great idea on gov't transparency, let's vote on it now."

There should be discusison on the floor before a vote, for everyone not in that committee, but I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure to have something like that anyway isn't it? If someone has questions?