If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird writes:
In article , says... First, SJ Res 15 never made it out of committee - it was a political stunt, not a serious piece of legislation - the matter was never put to vote and it's been dead for over a year. Secondly, Orrin Hatch is known for proposing constitutional amendments of all sorts. He's from Utah. They're a funny bunch. You missed the second bill then. I notice that Arnie is still (as of August this year) vigorously supporting the notion. Maybe he needs you as a political consultant? There were two other bills (introduced in the house) at the same time as the Senate proposal. Neither has come to vote and all proposals relating to this issue have been dead for over a year. Yet there are few-week-old newswire articles about it. Strange for something so 'dead'. Arnold hasn't really said anything on this issue - his spokespeople keep doing the "Arnold is focusing on California" thing, so I don't see how he is 'vigorously' supporting a dead proposal. Calling for national debate on the issue isn't really saying anything. What a delightfully blinkered view you have. On this, as on every other topic you discuss. B |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... There were two other bills (introduced in the house) at the same time as the Senate proposal. Neither has come to vote and all proposals relating to this issue have been dead for over a year. Yet there are few-week-old newswire articles about it. Strange for something so 'dead'. OK, Rohrabacher introduced a bill nearly identical to two others put forward in the House last year. I honestly don't see how it will come to vote given the track record of this issue. The Judicial committee isn't going to let this hit the floor for open debate or vote any time soon. Arnold hasn't really said anything on this issue - his spokespeople keep doing the "Arnold is focusing on California" thing, so I don't see how he is 'vigorously' supporting a dead proposal. Calling for national debate on the issue isn't really saying anything. What a delightfully blinker Arnold isn't calling for national debate on the issue. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... There were two other bills (introduced in the house) at the same time as the Senate proposal. Neither has come to vote and all proposals relating to this issue have been dead for over a year. Yet there are few-week-old newswire articles about it. Strange for something so 'dead'. OK, Rohrabacher introduced a bill nearly identical to two others put forward in the House last year. I honestly don't see how it will come to vote given the track record of this issue. The Judicial committee isn't going to let this hit the floor for open debate or vote any time soon. Arnold hasn't really said anything on this issue - his spokespeople keep doing the "Arnold is focusing on California" thing, so I don't see how he is 'vigorously' supporting a dead proposal. Calling for national debate on the issue isn't really saying anything. What a delightfully blinker Arnold isn't calling for national debate on the issue. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird writes:
In article , says... There were two other bills (introduced in the house) at the same time as the Senate proposal. Neither has come to vote and all proposals relating to this issue have been dead for over a year. Yet there are few-week-old newswire articles about it. Strange for something so 'dead'. OK, Rohrabacher introduced a bill nearly identical to two others put forward in the House last year. I honestly don't see how it will come to vote given the track record of this issue. The Judicial committee isn't going to let this hit the floor for open debate or vote any time soon. What? So now it's not as dead as you claimed? How strange. Arnold hasn't really said anything on this issue - his spokespeople keep doing the "Arnold is focusing on California" thing, so I don't see how he is 'vigorously' supporting a dead proposal. Calling for national debate on the issue isn't really saying anything. What a delightfully blinker Arnold isn't calling for national debate on the issue. He has been reported to have done so. In a nationally broadcast interview, no less. Of course I'm sure that your wonderful sources of information, the same ones you used about the bills, says otherwise. Frankly I can't be bothered giving you another reason to follow me around the newsgroups making your pointless little posts, so why don't we agree that whatever fantasy world you live in is absolutely true. B |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Brian C. Baird writes:
In article , says... There were two other bills (introduced in the house) at the same time as the Senate proposal. Neither has come to vote and all proposals relating to this issue have been dead for over a year. Yet there are few-week-old newswire articles about it. Strange for something so 'dead'. OK, Rohrabacher introduced a bill nearly identical to two others put forward in the House last year. I honestly don't see how it will come to vote given the track record of this issue. The Judicial committee isn't going to let this hit the floor for open debate or vote any time soon. What? So now it's not as dead as you claimed? How strange. Arnold hasn't really said anything on this issue - his spokespeople keep doing the "Arnold is focusing on California" thing, so I don't see how he is 'vigorously' supporting a dead proposal. Calling for national debate on the issue isn't really saying anything. What a delightfully blinker Arnold isn't calling for national debate on the issue. He has been reported to have done so. In a nationally broadcast interview, no less. Of course I'm sure that your wonderful sources of information, the same ones you used about the bills, says otherwise. Frankly I can't be bothered giving you another reason to follow me around the newsgroups making your pointless little posts, so why don't we agree that whatever fantasy world you live in is absolutely true. B |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... Arnold isn't calling for national debate on the issue. He has been reported to have done so. In a nationally broadcast interview, no less. Of course I'm sure that your wonderful sources of information, the same ones you used about the bills, says otherwise. What? www.senate.gov and www.house.gov aren't good sources of information on legislation? Well, **** me! I'd like to see the interview or the article you "quote", because my searches found no such thing. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... Arnold isn't calling for national debate on the issue. He has been reported to have done so. In a nationally broadcast interview, no less. Of course I'm sure that your wonderful sources of information, the same ones you used about the bills, says otherwise. What? www.senate.gov and www.house.gov aren't good sources of information on legislation? Well, **** me! I'd like to see the interview or the article you "quote", because my searches found no such thing. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |