Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,359
- 1,830
So now Pres. Barry Kardashian needs a law to force him to do what he promised to do voluntarily?
Smashing!
Smashing!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So now Pres. Barry Kardashian needs a law to force him to do what he promised to do voluntarily?
Smashing!
Here's question you'll dodge. Are you for disclosure of big donors? Yes or no
Thanks.
See..not only did he dodge it, he never came back. Standing on Principal I see.
The righties complain about Obama transparency but never ever want it...they only seek to mock Obama or the idea of transparency
yeah, like we know who all Donated to him.
get real, we know what this all about...too damn bad, it FAILED
I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.
And every time it has been filibustered by the Republicans.
Because the democrats can't resist putting stuff in there to protect the unions and their other constituents. That's why McCain wouldn't support it, next time why don't you put up a bill with no exceptions at all.
Do you really think people knowing who the donors are is going to keep dishonest politicians honest?
It's clear again the democrats feel this way
Yeah sure dude, they are Blowing smoke right up your ass and you are liking it. Neither Party is ever going to seriously support this. This is Campaign Year Posturing, If the Dems thought it had a chance of Passing, they would not bring it up.
Voted Yes By the way, but it's never going to happen. Anyone who thinks their Party will support it is a fool.
I am interested to know how the calls to Nelson and Rubio went.
I believe that this bill has been reintroduced from last year. I think it started in 2009 to get it passed.
And every time it has been filibustered by the Republicans.
Because the democrats can't resist putting stuff in there to protect the unions and their other constituents. That's why McCain wouldn't support it, next time why don't you put up a bill with no exceptions at all.
And every time it has been filibustered by the Republicans.
Because the democrats can't resist putting stuff in there to protect the unions and their other constituents. That's why McCain wouldn't support it, next time why don't you put up a bill with no exceptions at all.
Read the link I posted moron, it does NOT protect the unions! The GOP trash are lying to you, and you fools are lapping it up.
I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...
I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...
A lot of us, here, have been saying for some time that there shouldn't be limits as long as there is full disclosure.
Just seems oddly convenient that, during a campaign year where (for the 1st time ever) the incumbent will be outspent by the challenger, the Dem-controlled Senate chooses now for transparency.
I'm surprised with the poll results considering how this site leans pretty hard to the right. It looks like it's clear the GOP is going against the wishes of the american people, even their own supporters,...
A lot of us, here, have been saying for some time that there shouldn't be limits as long as there is full disclosure.
Just seems oddly convenient that, during a campaign year where (for the 1st time ever) the incumbent will be outspent by the challenger, the Dem-controlled Senate chooses now for transparency.
The dems have already tired to pass it years ago to have it again shot down by the right wing thugs.
Though like mentioned by another poster, how did it go calling your representatives to complain about them supporting crooks over transparency?
I think this is a great piece of legislation.
I think this is a great piece of legislation.
Probably because you have not read it.
I think this is a great piece of legislation.
Probably because you have not read it.
I have read it, have you?