Not if they have to pay thru the nose for
Posted By: offshoring american jobs. on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: Obama will CAUSE more businesses to go - overseas by raising their taxes. nm
Or better yet, if the practice is stopped altogether.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Too bad we cant wiggle our nose
nm
cut off your nose to spite your face...
You better look beyond your bank account today at which you are asking for because if you get your way, you will NEVER have a bank account that is yours again. You will have nothing that will be your own. Socialism = public rather private ownership. In other words, if you have it, everyone else owns it! how's that for your bank account?
Obama and you thumb your nose at everything
nm
Get a room? Something on my nose? Simply
because I was polite to someone, chose to give one of the "nice" ones the benefit of the doubt while finding posts like yours uninformative, childish and a pure waste of keystrokes?
I agree, given the never-ending bitterness and hatefulness you have, it will all come back to bite you in the butt some day. One usually gets back what they give.
How truly sad for you...... really! pulled by a nose ring..
**
I've followed some of the cases that ACLU sticks their nose in and to know that they are somehow sm
linked to the Democratic Party scares me. I do not see how they could defend NAMBLA if they are exploiting children. It's a disgrace to say the least.
Doesn't matter.....she stuck her nose out first
xx
All bow down to the great far left. You all can't see your nose to spite
wow, wipe your nose off, the brown is showing!
You are hysterical, like there is a REASON I would have to "brown nose" someone else?....sm
No, I think for myself, thanks a lot, why don't you wipe the SMUG off your face, because it is really unattractive. If I find someone's post cogent and agree, I feel free to post, just as you feel free to make crude, crass, ignorant posts, to each his/her own.
Really well-said; subsidy and help is one thing, turning your nose up at....sm
honest jobs for your family and obligations is another, I guess because I came from a farming family and you did what you had to do to survive and took great pride in doing so....is all that gone with past generations?? I fear life has been way to easy and "instant" for far too many, they do not know the meaning of the word sacrifice, which was what helped bring the country out of the Great Depression. Good post!
Those kind of folks can't see past their nose....
00
Oh..........I seriously doubt that! Pulled by a nose ring!
--
King Bush thumbs his nose at the Constitution...again
House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 15, 2006
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, � 7.
In that case, I am truly impressed by her ability to get her nose up her own buttocks!
Maybe being a contortionist is her true calling in life!
Held my nose and watched the same O'Reilly blather
made his pathetic atempt to delcare war on the NY Times, Rasmussen, etc. This is what sore losers do when they feel themselves in freefall. O'Reilly got his drawers in an uproar because he and Focks are down in the ratings and is'nt used to the idea of being #3 behind Olbermann, Cooper et all. Poor Bill.
Grasping the straw outta that hippity-hop nose!
It's a freakin' joke! I guess religion went on a fire sale so now it's going to be hip-hop! What a pile!
As long as US keeps sticking it's nose into Middle East politics
their puppet of destabilization, these unfortunate incidents will continue unabated. The oil belongs to them. It's our problem, not theirs.
Yep - thumb your nose at the world and defy the Geneva Convention
that ought to protect our troops to a great degree, huh? No different than Saddam. Do what you want in the name of "protecting" the "homeland." BS
nm and you thumb your nose at everying - common sense - killing this country.nm
@
|
