Ronald H Levine
09-30-2008, 06:10 PM
Do you see a pattern here?
Listen to the audio from KSL News Radio linked from their Rob Bishop interview (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=4395056&nid=148)
Here I copy and paste the text of Congressman Rob Bishop's interview and apply bold for my comments and opinion. It's not over. We really must be ever vigilant in this Congressional vote because they are likely to be called back into session to vote again and from listening to Rob Bishop, they seem to be planning for it.
(Please also note that now our United States Senate can be voting on the bill.)
What what happened is uh ... uh uh ... I guess the bottom line on here ... I ... No one is happy ... right now ... (They will likely try again.) because they altered principled votes (They will likely try again with designs to improve "bad" parts of the bill.) in what they thought was the right thing to do. Uh, I think we are unhappy that we think there was an artificial box net at when decisions needed to be made. (With more time to do what they do and without the pressure and limits, they will likely try again and tell us they made it better.) We had to vote today. (It's a trick! It's not over. They will likely try again now that we think we have won and aren't watching -- be ever vigilant!) Senate's not voting until Wednesday. There is still time to work something through. (See -- they know there is time to vote again.)
This bill that's on the floor ... is is light years better than the first proposal that was put up ... and much better than the first so called deal that was there. (Here the pattern develops -- they will claim they improved the bill when they vote again.) But, it still lacks ... uh a great deal -- it still spends ... the 7 ... it still appropriates the $700 billion ... or puts it in risk .. it doesn't make the insurance mandatory. (Here is the thinking of "solving" the "problems" of this Unconstitutional bill that changes our form of government.) There are some things ... that we could learn from history that were done. The last time that we had this kind ... of blockage (They have used this technique before -- present something horrific and be our heroes by voting against it only to "make it a good with some minor details" -- IT'S STILL A BAD BILL!) ... that don't take a lot of money ... that would create capital ... that would produce liquidity ... that we have. Just putting federal dollars is not the only way of doing it ... and I don't think ... we really were giving ourselves enough time ... to sort through some of the options that are still out there AND could still be done -- even this week. (Here, Congressman Rob Bishop tells us that it is likely to be brought back for a vote and there are those who intend to make it better and pass it.)
um I'm surprised too, because I guess you can say it was a bipartisan rejection. uh There were over a hundred ... Republicans who voted no and there were about a hundred Democrats who voted no. (Are these just pretend "no" votes only to become meaningless after they produce some change of a detail or two and vote yes? Remember the funding while pressured and later defunding of the fence while not being watched?) Um ... I ... What it says ... is I ... I still think people are out there looking for a better solution (Really, they are saying that there are people who want this bill when it is "better.") ... that better protects taxpayers ... and ... even ... last night, we heard from people who there in the 1980s savings and loan crisis ... that had ... the elements of worked back in that days ... that had very small cost to them ... that didn't involve putting a whole bunch of new money into the system ... and I think, if we incorporated more of those sufficient, you could have got people feeling comfortable, but yeah, we're on the right track ... were thinking of all sorts of concepts. (Do you want this bill in it's "new and improved" form? -- That's what they are going to try! Be ever vigilant! Let Congress know that this is not representing you! Ask who they are representing. Tell them that we the people have more votes!)
Too much was thrown off the table and then once again there this artificial ... deadline that was given. We were told that ... the world would come to an end right now. I don't know why! Why Monday was so spectacular and important that it had to be done right here and right now. It did not give ... enough people time to ... to uh ... to go through. And it also ... th the process again ... This was another bill, rushed to the floor, with absolutely no chance of making any amendments! We have set a record of making this type of votes this year ... and that ... that doesn't help the process work it's way through. (But, as soon as "the process" is acceptable, votes will be turning from no to yes -- that is unless we remain ever vigilant and let Congress know that we say no or will use our power of our votes and campaigning for their opponents to make that very clear.)
[Rob, being the parliamentarian that you are, familiar with the process as you are ...] (Many will change their votes when their procedure objections are removed)
Well, the bill is still ... heh ....in the senate. Uh They can pass it. (Let your Senators know what you think about this bill.)
We did pass, before this vote, a motion to adjourn which is one of those ... those uh ... I don't know why we did that to be honest with you. (Could it be to vote no and make us think that we won?) But, the speaker or the president still has the ability of calling us back into session. We could be called back into session as soon as this holiday ... uh session goes out ... we can be back here Wednesday or Thursday, if we wanted ... and and I think we ought to -- giving a chance to look at ... some more options and understanding you know if you need more conservatives voting for this, let's put some elements in here that will attract more conservatives ... to say: "yeah this is a decent proposal." (This is the plan of those who would defy the voters by trying it again and this time passing it with a few who change their votes.) People want to do something, but they also want to do the right thing. And I ... as we found out today there was 220 plus people ... that didn't think this was the right thing. (Not yet, right? This is an unconstitutional change in our form of government and it is discussed as if there are a few points that require fine tuning to make it a good bill!)
But, it's so much better than it was ... I don't think it was that far off from getting something that ... that is that is uh ... that is acceptable. (This is the plan. Thanks, Rob Bishop, for making it so clear for us that Congress intends to make this an "acceptable" bill and then pass it and tell constituents that it was bad before and they voted no, but they made it good and voted for it.)
uh as ... I'm I'm not totally sure, but I think Matheson ... I voted no and I think Mr. Cannon voted yes ...
That's my fault for getting in here first.
We can still learn from history and going back to the 1980s I think is ... is going to be the key to finding a good solution. ("A good solution" That's the trickery. If there is a yes vote -- they should get a no vote from us!)
RonaldHLevine@ gmail.com :) Ronald H Levine
Listen to the audio from KSL News Radio linked from their Rob Bishop interview (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=4395056&nid=148)
Here I copy and paste the text of Congressman Rob Bishop's interview and apply bold for my comments and opinion. It's not over. We really must be ever vigilant in this Congressional vote because they are likely to be called back into session to vote again and from listening to Rob Bishop, they seem to be planning for it.
(Please also note that now our United States Senate can be voting on the bill.)
What what happened is uh ... uh uh ... I guess the bottom line on here ... I ... No one is happy ... right now ... (They will likely try again.) because they altered principled votes (They will likely try again with designs to improve "bad" parts of the bill.) in what they thought was the right thing to do. Uh, I think we are unhappy that we think there was an artificial box net at when decisions needed to be made. (With more time to do what they do and without the pressure and limits, they will likely try again and tell us they made it better.) We had to vote today. (It's a trick! It's not over. They will likely try again now that we think we have won and aren't watching -- be ever vigilant!) Senate's not voting until Wednesday. There is still time to work something through. (See -- they know there is time to vote again.)
This bill that's on the floor ... is is light years better than the first proposal that was put up ... and much better than the first so called deal that was there. (Here the pattern develops -- they will claim they improved the bill when they vote again.) But, it still lacks ... uh a great deal -- it still spends ... the 7 ... it still appropriates the $700 billion ... or puts it in risk .. it doesn't make the insurance mandatory. (Here is the thinking of "solving" the "problems" of this Unconstitutional bill that changes our form of government.) There are some things ... that we could learn from history that were done. The last time that we had this kind ... of blockage (They have used this technique before -- present something horrific and be our heroes by voting against it only to "make it a good with some minor details" -- IT'S STILL A BAD BILL!) ... that don't take a lot of money ... that would create capital ... that would produce liquidity ... that we have. Just putting federal dollars is not the only way of doing it ... and I don't think ... we really were giving ourselves enough time ... to sort through some of the options that are still out there AND could still be done -- even this week. (Here, Congressman Rob Bishop tells us that it is likely to be brought back for a vote and there are those who intend to make it better and pass it.)
um I'm surprised too, because I guess you can say it was a bipartisan rejection. uh There were over a hundred ... Republicans who voted no and there were about a hundred Democrats who voted no. (Are these just pretend "no" votes only to become meaningless after they produce some change of a detail or two and vote yes? Remember the funding while pressured and later defunding of the fence while not being watched?) Um ... I ... What it says ... is I ... I still think people are out there looking for a better solution (Really, they are saying that there are people who want this bill when it is "better.") ... that better protects taxpayers ... and ... even ... last night, we heard from people who there in the 1980s savings and loan crisis ... that had ... the elements of worked back in that days ... that had very small cost to them ... that didn't involve putting a whole bunch of new money into the system ... and I think, if we incorporated more of those sufficient, you could have got people feeling comfortable, but yeah, we're on the right track ... were thinking of all sorts of concepts. (Do you want this bill in it's "new and improved" form? -- That's what they are going to try! Be ever vigilant! Let Congress know that this is not representing you! Ask who they are representing. Tell them that we the people have more votes!)
Too much was thrown off the table and then once again there this artificial ... deadline that was given. We were told that ... the world would come to an end right now. I don't know why! Why Monday was so spectacular and important that it had to be done right here and right now. It did not give ... enough people time to ... to uh ... to go through. And it also ... th the process again ... This was another bill, rushed to the floor, with absolutely no chance of making any amendments! We have set a record of making this type of votes this year ... and that ... that doesn't help the process work it's way through. (But, as soon as "the process" is acceptable, votes will be turning from no to yes -- that is unless we remain ever vigilant and let Congress know that we say no or will use our power of our votes and campaigning for their opponents to make that very clear.)
[Rob, being the parliamentarian that you are, familiar with the process as you are ...] (Many will change their votes when their procedure objections are removed)
Well, the bill is still ... heh ....in the senate. Uh They can pass it. (Let your Senators know what you think about this bill.)
We did pass, before this vote, a motion to adjourn which is one of those ... those uh ... I don't know why we did that to be honest with you. (Could it be to vote no and make us think that we won?) But, the speaker or the president still has the ability of calling us back into session. We could be called back into session as soon as this holiday ... uh session goes out ... we can be back here Wednesday or Thursday, if we wanted ... and and I think we ought to -- giving a chance to look at ... some more options and understanding you know if you need more conservatives voting for this, let's put some elements in here that will attract more conservatives ... to say: "yeah this is a decent proposal." (This is the plan of those who would defy the voters by trying it again and this time passing it with a few who change their votes.) People want to do something, but they also want to do the right thing. And I ... as we found out today there was 220 plus people ... that didn't think this was the right thing. (Not yet, right? This is an unconstitutional change in our form of government and it is discussed as if there are a few points that require fine tuning to make it a good bill!)
But, it's so much better than it was ... I don't think it was that far off from getting something that ... that is that is uh ... that is acceptable. (This is the plan. Thanks, Rob Bishop, for making it so clear for us that Congress intends to make this an "acceptable" bill and then pass it and tell constituents that it was bad before and they voted no, but they made it good and voted for it.)
uh as ... I'm I'm not totally sure, but I think Matheson ... I voted no and I think Mr. Cannon voted yes ...
That's my fault for getting in here first.
We can still learn from history and going back to the 1980s I think is ... is going to be the key to finding a good solution. ("A good solution" That's the trickery. If there is a yes vote -- they should get a no vote from us!)
RonaldHLevine@ gmail.com :) Ronald H Levine