Some of what is in the Stimulus Bill

And don't think the President doesn't know who's hindering the partisanship.

There are indications that Mr Obama is also frustrated with Democrats on Capitol Hill, who Republicans complain are shutting them out. If Democrats manage to hold the HOR in 2010, I won't be suprised if Sister Nan is outed as SOTH.

Congressman Jim Cooper, a conservative Democrat, told a Nashville radio show that he had received "quiet encouragement" from the White House to vote against the House stimulus Bill, which was overseen by Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House.

source

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:Stating facts ain't whining Ziggy, it's stating facts.

And to me it seems that all you’re doing is replacing private money with government money and I'm not sure having the government in charge is the lesser of the two evils.

I’m curious as to why you oppose individuals exercising their 1st amendment rights with their money?

I do not accept that bribery of public officials or candidates for public office is "free epeech". What it is is a corruption of the electral process.

That's your opinion.

This nation has tried restricting who and how much individuals can give to and with every restriction; someone finds a way around it. It's not working.

You say the only way to counter it is to put all the money in the hands of the government and allow them to control the purse strings. But the thing is, we've see how the nanny state controlling the purse strings works and that is not very good.

No, that is not what I have said. You do not know what you are talking about. About a year ago here I posted the text of one version of a public campaign finance bill. And although you took the time to criticize it, you obviously haven't read it. And you accuse ME of having biases?

As it is, we as a nation are now staring at an $11 to $12 trillion dollar debt and upwards of $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Plain and simple, the nanny state is a failure and I honestly see no reason for giving them more control then they already have over our elections.

That's my opinion.

Now we both have one.

OK. Then just be happy with the way things are. Because as long as we elect public office holders the way we do, then not much is going to change.

Aaron wrote:No we didn't.

We had an election that was bought and paid for by liberal America and advertized by the liberal media who were determined they were going to avenge 2000 and they got exactly what they wanted.

You're still O for.

Keep up the good work.

But you would be OK with an election that was bought and paid for by non-liberal America, and "advertized" by conservative media?

I read your campaign bill which is why I critisized it. I do remember there was one or two things I thought might work if tweaked, but overall I don't remember specifically why it was a bad proposition, just that it was.

Give me a link, I'll read through it again and tell you what's wrong with it again.

And it was two years ago on the old forum. I remember because hillbilly was spouting a lot of the same tripe you were.

I am using my wife's computer this week. I expect to have my computer back by Monday. But since my own computer is down, so I do not have the West Virginia bill at hand.

But the latest WV bill is similiar to current law in Maine. Here is some of what has been happening in Maine since 1996:

http://www.newrules.org/gov/cleanME.html

And here is the actual text of the Maine Clean elections Act:

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Ach14.pdf

I say let them block the economic recovery package and then take it to the people.

Ditto. I'd far, far rather sell blocking this package than I would foisting it on an unsuspecting public. Sooner or later people are going to wonder what's in it. I got a gnat you can gag on...

Looks like the people are coming to the Congress:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/voter.anger/index.html

Loving eyes never see OC.

"I remember because hillbilly was spouting a lot of the same tripe you were."

Well I wonder where old Hillbilly is these days?

If I remember right I think he lives here in Jackson County.

Maybe he didnt get the word about the new forum.

But I think he was a regular poster right up to the end, wasnt he?

He's spreading joy on the Gazette this morning. He's calling himself West Virginian.

He lives down the ridge from me in Putnam County, I think he's in Buffalo. I'm almost positive Ziggy invited him.

CEOs, Bankers Used Corporate Cards for Sex, Says NY Madam
Wall Street Exposed as Convicted Escort Boss Reveals Client List of 9,800
By ANNA SCHECTER, RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS
February 6, 2009
45 comments FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
DIGG
SHARE Wall street lawyers, investment bankers, CEOs and media executives often used corporate credit cards to pay for $2,000 an hour prostitutes, according to the madam who ran one of New York's biggest and most expensive escort services until it was busted last year.

Read story at www.lynnsamuels.typepad.com

velly interesting...

http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/story?id=6813806&page=1

Far more lurid than interesting. Wouldn't criminal charges be in order?

They would if it was working people doing it.

But not since it's hi-rollers.

Yeah, that's why you can no longer go to sections of any town in American and find prostitutes selling themselves to johns every day, because the government is cracking down on the working man's purchase of sex.

They would if it was working people doing it.

Yes, hard working little guy Eliot Spitzer is a martyr, isn't he? Well, tell me - what's the point in electing democrats then? Right now, "they" are all democrats. Why wouldn't "they" prosecute fat cats? I thought that's why you kept whining about electing democrats...

Squeaking wheel gets the grease.

Nobody complaining about the fatcats.

But my reason for posting is it looks like some of the banks, etc crying poor pitiful me for the Tarp Money were apparently paying for $2k per hr. callgirls for their exec's.

Don't go boo-hooing to us. You favored the bailout. We opposed it. You implied we were heartless obstructionists who care nothing about the po' folks back home.

People are complaining about the fatcats and have been for months. It's not our fault you, along with the ruling party, continue to turn a deaf ear to us.

post deleted - wrong thread

Stephanie wrote:Don't go boo-hooing to us. You favored the bailout. We opposed it. You implied we were heartless obstructionists who care nothing about the po' folks back home.

People are complaining about the fatcats and have been for months. It's not our fault you, along with the ruling party, continue to turn a deaf ear to us.

As Yogi siad, I’m having deja vu all over again.