I just heard on the radio the Dems arrived at the Capitol Building last night, some arriving on bikes to vote on an appropriations bill and by doing so prevented the Republicans from adding amendments to investigate ACORN and Nancy Pelosi and the Cia fiasco. No link, just heard on xm on the way to work. When the truth comes out about Nancy and what she is trying to hide at all costs she is toast.
was that the 100 billion going to the international monetary fund? i think it had a lot of amendments in it. this congress is the most crooked in american history.
Have you been able to locate a link showing that the Democrats held a midnight vote last night to avoid investigations of ACORN and Pelosi? I still haven't seen any news reports about it, but I'm very curious to get more details.
Not sure what bill it was. Just that by doing what they did it prevented any money to be used to investigate ACORN and the Pelosi situation. She will get nailed eventually.
matt you heard mostly rightThe Link and Dems did successfully stop an amendment that would prevent any orgainzation from getting federal funds if the org is under investigation AND I am shocked, Dems stopped the investigation of Pelosi
do we even have $5 billion to loan out.. Also, funny how this is not really making news, but the GOP senator resigning is..
So, there was no midnight vote, 33 amendments were allowed out of the massive number Republicans tried to get debated without time limits, and some Republicans had to vote in their relax-at-home clothes. A few politically sensitive amendments were killed, but simply based on the majority votes, not any trickery. It certainly sucks to be in the minority.
not any trickery _______________________________________ well i think not stopping federal funds from going to dirty and corrupt organizations and ceasing all funding for purposes of investigating congress members is not in the best interest of our money or country. its not illegal but it is certainly not ethical.
ACORN and investigating Pelosi for torture? If this is all they've got, they're still in the wilderness. The GOP is just flailing away right now.
triple, I thought the shotgun approach that Dems took a few years ago was stupid. But, it worked. I think this is stupid and focus should be entirely on the idiocy of the socialized medicine program, the unprecedented spending, and the cronieism of the administration and its spending. However, like I said, shotgunning appears to work. And I see little harm to the country in pointing out all the ethical problems that our government is perpetrating.
What were the shotgun efforts that the Dems used so effectively? I was under the impression it was Republicans who shot themselves.
Sangre Naranjada: If you are worried about transparency, why are those political additions from Republicans going to be put into an appropriations bill? ("it's a sin when they do it, it's a virtue when we do it")
Let me see if I understand the issue. Democrats have imposed a 24-hour pre-printing requirement on amendments for the appropriations bills. Such a requirement has been used by Republicans in the past for some types of bills, but not appropriations bills, which are typically considered under an open rule. Democrats are claiming that this requirement is for transparency reasons; Republicans, or at least you, are claiming that Democrats are doing it to get Republicans to expose their legislative tactics. Republicans offered 127 amendments to this appropriations bill. It's an unusually high number, but Republicans claim that they had to cover all bases because of the pre-printing rule. Democrats are claiming that Republicans are trying to throw a monkey wrench in the process by slowing everything down, and sought time limits on debate. Time limits on debate aren't usual practice, but neither are 127 amendments. So, because the debate was going to take awhile (or because Democrats wanted to screw the Republicans), Democrats unexpectedly called back everyone who had left and had a vote on which amendments could be debated, permitting only 33 amendments to receive debate, 24 of which were offered by Republicans. Democrats picked and chose the Republican amendments to leave out. Either way, the amendments that are not receiving debate were likely to get voted down, and many would have been withdrawn because they are duplicative, but not letting them receive debate conflicts with Pelosi's prior promises. Is that about right? If so, two questions: 1) Isn't the pre-printing requirement part of Pelosi's "A New Direction For America," which you accuse her of violating by screening out amendments? It promises that bill text should be made available "at least 24 hours . . . prior to floor consideration." 2) Wasn't debate taking place when the members were called back to vote? The amendments were already pre-printed by that point, right? So why didn't the Republicans start withdrawing all of the duplicative and unnecessary amendments when Hoyer complained about the time that it was taking?
