IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Mitch McConnell , partisanship , partisanship charges , partisanship incidents , partisanship issues , republicans

Reply
Old 1st November 2010, 04:58 PM   #41
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
well of course I cannot. I did not read it. Did you?

I can tell you that it is SUPPOSE to increase REGULATION, put in protections for investors.

Can you provide me with the arguments that Republicans make as to why NOT TO support Wall Street Reform, given what happened in 2008-2009.

TAM
Then why did you hold it up as a bad thing that they were against Wall Street Reform. I really don't know their reasons I really don't know what was in it but I have not claimed it is good or bad. But if you do not know what is in it other than it is called a reform bill how do you know they were wrong to be against it.

But they did call it reform so it must be good.

Last edited by eeyore1954; 1st November 2010 at 04:59 PM.
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 05:30 PM   #42
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,811
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Like infrastructure, or unemployment benefits or several other programs that the "party of no" actually endorsed or drafted in years past?
Did republicans vote against unemployment benefits or against extended them without providing for the source to pay for them?
eeyore1954 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2010, 02:36 AM   #43
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by eeyore1954 View Post
Did republicans vote against unemployment benefits or against extended them without providing for the source to pay for them?
Yes, even though they've always voted the other way.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.