Some Stuff On Sec. 8 But Also Some Other Stuff And Some Bickering, Off Topic Stuff And Some Name Calling-sprinkled With A Pinch Of Tangential Opinions

[GregS]

Greg, you are wishful in your thinking. The senate (jones) is not scared in the least. He wants no felons, he wants the trier of fact language removed and probably a few other things we won't like. The bills are all still very alive and likely more dangerous than ever. I think at this point we better hope that Jones goes to far and the democrats grow a spine.

 

Umm. Did I say anything about them running scared? Maybe I missed it.

 

Umm. Did I not say that: "Be advised that we cannot count on the Senate members keeping the bills on the back burner. It is possible that they can bring them for argument at any time, and need to be watched closely."

 

Umm. Are you high?

Edited June 25, 2012 by GregS

[GregS]

He obviously is not paying any attention to anything. Greg go back and read Crops manifesto and note he mentions my use of suboxone.

 

As always, thanks for your input.

 

Not that I have gone through the entire thread, but the first entire page of posts, viz., the first eleven posts, has no mention of suboxone.

[GregS]

how long can they sit on the bac burner is there a time table do they expire if not voted on?

 

I'm not sure and have not found the rules on google. Maybe you can.

[SFC]

It is regarded that the pressure put on them by groups like this, and now working together, have contributed in very significant ways. The unanimous Supreme Court rulings in both King and Kolanek are a stern talking to and embarrasment for the Couirt of Appeals, the Attorney General, reactionary judges, prosecutors, and police, and a clear message to they and the legislature that they have all stepped on their d!cks.

 

That Greg, combined with a previous post.. And no I was sober as a stone..

[GregS]

That Greg, combined with a previous post.. And no I was sober as a stone..

 

And what previous post was that?

 

I do not see anything about being scared.

Edited June 25, 2012 by GregS

[Mememe]

I'm not sure and have not found the rules on google. Maybe you can.

 

This does not mean that the bill has died, but has rather been put aside to be used by Majority Leader Harry Reid as the underlying vehicle from which he will draft a counter-plan. The Reid plan will then be submitted back to the House.

http://www.theblaze....ouse-debt-bill/

 

=====================================================

 

just because a bill did not make it through ...does not mean it is "dead." At the end of the session, all bills in the second house are returned to the first house; so a House bill in committee in the Senate when session ends is returned to the House. At the start of the next session, be it a special session or the next regular session, bills from the previous session are reintroduced and retained in their present position.

http://www.leg.wa.go...s/Overview.aspx

Edited June 25, 2012 by Mememe

[GregS]

Thanks Mal. These bills will then be in the legislature indefinitely?

[GregS]

Then again, those are federal and Washington state rules. Michigan rules might be different, but they are not proving easy to find.

[+Malamute]

Bills die at the end of the session and can be reintroduced in the next session, just as any old or new bill can be.

[Dr. Bob]

Not that I have gone through the entire thread, but the first entire page of posts, viz., the first eleven posts, has no mention of suboxone.

 

Then before you question my input, at least know what I am responding to. It is never good to post out of ignorance.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, thanks for your input. It really added to the discussion.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Then before you question my input, at least know what I am responding to. It is never good to post out of ignorance.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, thanks for your input. It really added to the discussion.

 

A tangential side note that was not the point of the post or the thread, since I found it, did not need or deserve a continuing place here. You bob, have repeatedly pointed your finger at people who hijack threads with this kind of thing and show no patience for it.

 

I have to wonder whose side you are on. From arguing against our taking our hard earned protections and owning them, to strung out diatribes that clearly represent your character and appear intended to shout other people down, rather than engage in lucid and constructive conversation. I would ask that you stop this, but will not expect that to happen. Too bad.

 

What is that under your nose?

[Dilligaf]

A tangential side note that was not the point of the post or the thread, since I found it, did not need or deserve a continuing place here. You bob, have repeatedly pointed your finger at people who hijack threads with this kind of thing and show no patience for it.

 

I have to wonder whose side you are on. From arguing against our taking our hard earned protections and owning them, to strung out diatribes that clearly represent your character and appear intended to shout other people down, rather than engage in lucid and constructive conversation. I would ask that you stop this, but will not expect that to happen. Too bad.

 

What is that under your nose?

:lolu: :lolu:

[imiubu]

thank you !!!

[imiubu]

A tangential side note that was not the point of the post or the thread, since I found it, did not need or deserve a continuing place here. You bob, have repeatedly pointed your finger at people who hijack threads with this kind of thing and show no patience for it.

 

I have to wonder whose side you are on. From arguing against our taking our hard earned protections and owning them, to strung out diatribes that clearly represent your character and appear intended to shout other people down, rather than engage in lucid and constructive conversation. I would ask that you stop this, but will not expect that to happen. Too bad.

 

What is that under your nose?

:lolu: :lolu:

 

Thank you !!!

[GregS]

Any time.

[+mayorherb]

A tangential side note that was not the point of the post or the thread, since I found it, did not need or deserve a continuing place here. You bob, have repeatedly pointed your finger at people who hijack threads with this kind of thing and show no patience for it.

 

I have to wonder whose side you are on. From arguing against our taking our hard earned protections and owning them, to strung out diatribes that clearly represent your character and appear intended to shout other people down, rather than engage in lucid and constructive conversation. I would ask that you stop this, but will not expect that to happen. Too bad.

 

What is that under your nose?

Thank you!

[GregS]

Hey Chad. How about a poll here to ask whether respondents are inclined to go with registry or without?

[GregS]

Does SFC have a response to my last question to him?

 

Thought not.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Did someone say something?

 

Sometimes it is worth it to try and counter nonsense with logical arguments, some of which take a few lines. But looking at the crew that applaud your litte effort at sarcasm, I rest my case. You can't counter faith with facts.

 

Dr. Bob

 

the little black thing? that is the microphone of my headset, I was flying with my daughter at the time.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Did someone say something?

 

Apparently you are too dense to see or acknowledge it.

 

No thought out positions, No reference to authoritative sources. No common courtesy. All we can give you is a nod for persistence, which is only serving to make you look foolish. Show me a persistent fool, and I'll show you a fool.

[GregS]

That was no sarcasm. But if you insist:

 

No. The white stuff that magically appears in our mental picture of you.

 

Bob. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that yours is a flatulent argument.

 

Tell us. Do farts really light?

Edited June 27, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

I tend to put toadies and FPL posters on ignore. I saw one posted in response to my last one, so I thought I'd give the courtesy of a reply. I think your inability to see the sources (the law, attorneys, the owner and administrators of this site, CPU members, etc) reflects your unwillingness to accept any challenge to your faith. You don't see the logic of arguments because you have no concept of what logic is. You were given courtesy until such time as it became apparent you didn't return it or deserve it. The best you can do is an occasional personal shot at me, SFC, or anyone that doesn't see things in your way. Your fans are obviously amused by it because they share your view of the world.

 

You say you give me a nod for persistence. You and those like you are a source of amusement to me. Every court needs a jester, restless has run back to Joe so I am pleased we have you...

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

There was no sarcasm. But if you insist:

 

No. The white stuff.

 

Bob. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that yours is a flatulent argument.

 

Tell us. Do farts really light?

 

Wow, what a profound, logical argument promoting your position! Wow, I am just amazed at your command of the subject and must bow to your book lernin Jethro....

 

And yes, they do, they can contain methane. Source CRC manual and a couple of years of freshman organic chemisty. And the white stuff is a smile, try one sometimes.

 

You are back on ignore after one or two earlier posts that actually made sense. Way to go.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Thankew. Thought you'd never leave.

 

Freshman dorm organic chemistry was a gas, eh? I can go to my grave happy now, having heard it from an academic.

Edited June 27, 2012 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Ok well this posting was about the section 8 defense, unless anyone has anything to say about that, it looks done.

 

Dr. Bob