PDA

View Full Version : APP - senate votes 60 to 39 for cloture on health care debate



Don Quixote
11-22-2009, 02:02 AM
yep the senate voted to debate health care

watch the amendments fly...and the delays by the gop

it makes me wonder who was promised what and what remains to be promised to get it passed

Minister of Truth
11-22-2009, 02:05 AM
yep the senate voted to debate health care

watch the amendments fly...and the delays by the gop

Hold on, I thought cloture is designed to end debate (usually meaning a fillibuster, not real debate), so that an up-or-down vote can take place. Is this not the case here, or, should I ask, what is the next step?

Don Quixote
11-22-2009, 02:11 AM
Hold on, I thought cloture is designed to end debate (usually meaning a fillibuster, not real debate), so that an up-or-down vote can take place. Is this not the case here, or, should I ask, what is the next step?

endless debate and amendments plus deals to yet be made

and another cloture vote to end debate and call for a vote

but first it has to move to the senate floor for debate


cloture from wiki

A similar procedure was adopted in the United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America) in response to the actions of isolationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationist) senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster), a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson) urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a "little group of willful men", to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22 on March 8, 1917.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-0) Cloture was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-1) during the 66th Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/66th_United_States_Congress), to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-2)
The cloture rule originally required a supermajority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority) of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-4) For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-senate.gov-5) However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Democratic Senators from Southern states to block civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights) legislation.
In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/94th_United_States_Congress), having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1974) to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.) [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-senate.gov-5)
The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered. (The Democratic Party had held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress) of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party.) Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.
The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. In order to invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators "present and voting") still applies.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-6)
The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:


A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
The clerk reads the petition.
The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_call)" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
The President of the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) or President pro tempore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate) presents the petition.
The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.

After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:


No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-7)
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%28proposed_law%29) may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_%28parliamentary_procedure%29) are not permissible.
The presiding officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiding_Officer_of_the_United_States_Senate) gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

The ability to invoke cloture was last attained by a US political party in the 111th Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress), by the Democrats, with the help of two independents.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#cite_note-cnn-perfectstorm-8)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloture_Voting,_U.S._Senate,_1947_to_2008.jpg )

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-22-2009, 06:51 AM
The Senate version moves to the floor for debate, after which, there will be a vote, then the bill is combined with the House bill and they both have to vote again on the final version. It would be at least mid-January before the president would have a bill to sign. Something tells me that is being optimistic, there is a lot left to debate.

Remember, this is the KEYSTONE Democrat agenda item. If they could not have moved the bill out of committee and onto the floor for debate, it would have been a monumental failure for the party. If there is any real surprise here, it is the difficulty in getting the votes to move it to debate. What should have been a slam dunk, has been rife with problems and controversy. Certainly, there is more to come!

Good Luck
11-22-2009, 09:53 PM
The only reason it made it to the floor is the democrats bribed Landrieu with 300 million in pork for her state. Good job guys. Really gives the public reason to trust you.

Good Luck
11-22-2009, 09:55 PM
watch the amendments fly...
This is when the spending parts will bloat with special interests and pork.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-22-2009, 10:09 PM
The only reason it made it to the floor is the democrats bribed Landrieu with 300 million in pork for her state. Good job guys. Really gives the public reason to trust you.

:clink:

Don Quixote
11-22-2009, 10:58 PM
This is when the spending parts will bloat with special interests and pork.

yep, politics as usual :(

they should either support it and do the right thing or oppose it

but noooo, they have to be bribed and courted...

Mott the Hoople
11-23-2009, 06:16 AM
yep the senate voted to debate health care

watch the amendments fly...and the delays by the gop

it makes me wonder who was promised what and what remains to be promised to get it passedWell remember what John McCain said. Two things you never want to see made are laws and sausages. I can vouch for the later and the former appears to be even more disgusting.

Mott the Hoople
11-23-2009, 06:19 AM
The only reason it made it to the floor is the democrats bribed Landrieu with 300 million in pork for her state. Good job guys. Really gives the public reason to trust you.That's a myth dude. It's all ready been debunked.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-23-2009, 08:59 AM
That's a myth dude. It's all ready been debunked.

cool....do you have a link?

Damocles
11-23-2009, 09:22 AM
cool....do you have a link?
You mean to the debunking of this story?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html

Don Quixote
11-23-2009, 11:01 AM
You mean to the debunking of this story?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102272_pf.html

sickening, but made possible by the reps in lock step opposition

what an opportunity for dem pork...with the poor reps left out in the cold of their own making

bi-partisanship, sure

once more the gop party of no and the dem party of pork :palm:

SmarterthanYou
11-23-2009, 11:17 AM
wait a sec, landrieus vote wasn't bought for 300 mill, just because she says it wasn't?

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 11:23 AM
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 11:27 AM
Why do we bother?

The Republicans are going to hate us afterwards anyway and are going to abolish the filibuster at their first oppurtunity. We should have used reconcilliation instead of deals.

SmarterthanYou
11-23-2009, 11:29 AM
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.

that's because you both are anti american and abhor individual rights and freedom.

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-23-2009, 11:35 AM
wait a sec, landrieus vote wasn't bought for 300 mill, just because she says it wasn't?

Yes, it has been proclaimed a myth and debunked because a liberal pinhead said so! Don't you understand how this works? Liberals are so much smarter than the rest of us knuckledraggers, they get to claim things are myth and debunk them without anything more than their word. The reasoning behind this is, if it were not a debunked myth, the intellectually superior liberal would certainly know it! So obviously, because they say it is a myth, it must be!

BRUTALITOPS
11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.

democrats get universal healthcare for themselves only, and they are the only ones that get taxed the necessary amount to support it.

:good4u:

Dixie - In Memoriam
11-23-2009, 11:45 AM
democrats get universal healthcare for themselves only, and they are the only ones that get taxed the necessary amount to support it.

:good4u:

Good idea, but the SCOTUS would rule it violates the 14th Amendment, and is unconstitutional.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-23-2009, 12:13 PM
well mott.....looks like it hasn't been debunked at all....in fact from damo's link she admits she recieved the 300 million....

have anything mott?

Cancel 2018. 3
11-23-2009, 12:16 PM
Bipartisanship is not possible in the current enviornment. The Democrats want universal healthcare and the Republicans want to abolish all regulations on insurance companies. There's no common ground there, and any bill that attempted to would be ridiculous.

not true.

do you post anything serious anymore? people claim you're just trolling and really acting like a far right winger, just the opposite, but this is pretty much all you post....stuff that simply isn't true and outrageous claims about death and deportation...

why?

BRUTALITOPS
11-23-2009, 12:27 PM
Good idea, but the SCOTUS would rule it violates the 14th Amendment, and is unconstitutional.

i know, but we can dream

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 01:14 PM
democrats get universal healthcare for themselves only, and they are the only ones that get taxed the necessary amount to support it.

:good4u:

People would attempt to game the system by switching party affiliation at appropriate times.

We all provide a right to healthcare or none of us provide it. You're solution only makes sense to a libertarian who doesn't understand (or refuses to understand) the concept of collective resposnibilty.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 01:16 PM
Liberals are so much smarter than the rest of us knuckledraggers!

:clink:

Epicurus
11-23-2009, 01:28 PM
People would attempt to game the system by switching party affiliation at appropriate times.

We all provide a right to healthcare or none of us provide it. You're solution only makes sense to a libertarian who doesn't understand (or refuses to understand) the concept of collective resposnibilty.

Gee hmm lemme think.

Okay. I vote none.

SmarterthanYou
11-23-2009, 01:41 PM
the concept of collective resposnibilty.

:lmao:


collective responsibility. please explain and provide context.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 01:45 PM
Gee hmm lemme think.

Okay. I vote none.

You're not a member of the house of representatives. :(

Too bad. I guess you'll just have to go along anyway. I'll be enjoying your tax dollars! :clink:

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 01:46 PM
You have no right not to provide universal healthcare. Just because the state is currently being irresponsible in its duty to require you to provide universal healthcare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The state is currently violating our rights, and we are going to fix that.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-23-2009, 02:25 PM
You have no right not to provide universal healthcare. Just because the state is currently being irresponsible in its duty to require you to provide universal healthcare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The state is currently violating our rights, and we are going to fix that.

lol....you don't have a right to NOT do something....lmao

tell me, where does this right to universal care come from? what part of the constitution?

FUCK THE POLICE
11-23-2009, 02:27 PM
Human decency.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-23-2009, 02:35 PM
Human decency.

so you can't actually point out the constitutional right....thanks for at least admitting that....

you might want to call it an inherent right or a fundamental right....and compare it to education, voting, travel....etc....human decency is wishy washy....

if we have a fundamental right to education, travel, voting....how is it we don't have a fundamental right to health care....

seems like an interesting question to me

Epicurus
11-23-2009, 02:39 PM
What's funny is deep at some level Watermark knows he is wrong, yet he keeps going anyway.

SmarterthanYou
11-23-2009, 02:46 PM
You have no right not to provide universal healthcare. Just because the state is currently being irresponsible in its duty to require you to provide universal healthcare doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The state is currently violating our rights, and we are going to fix that.

I need you to point out where the constitution says I must provide you with healthcare.

Cancel 2018. 3
11-23-2009, 03:18 PM
What's funny is deep at some level Watermark knows he is wrong, yet he keeps going anyway.

no he doesn't

Good Luck
11-23-2009, 10:23 PM
That's a myth dude. It's all ready been debunked.
Debunked because even while trumpeting her success in gaining $300 MILLION in additional federal funds for LA, she SAYS it had nothing to do with her vote.

And, of course, you believe it because .... umm why exactly is it you believe her? Because she is a democrat? Or because she voted the way you wanted her to vote?

But, while you have your dumb cap on, wanna buy some LA swamp land? Going cheap. I'll even get them to subsidize your purchase with some of that $300 million.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-24-2009, 01:41 AM
The conservative/libertarian plan for healthcare eventually devolves into voluntary giving, IE charity. As the first socialist/liberal, Thomas Paine, put so eloquently:


"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."

- Thomas Paine Libertarian/conservative ideology has a very beautiful model constructed around it. The only problem with this model is that it has practically no applications in real life. That doesn't prevent them from believing that they have a moral right to have this model universally put into practice, to the detriment of everyone.

Hermes Thoth
11-24-2009, 05:17 AM
The conservative/libertarian plan for healthcare eventually devolves into voluntary giving, IE charity. As the first socialist/liberal, Thomas Paine, put so eloquently:

Libertarian/conservative/neo-fascist ideology has a very beautiful model constructed around it. The only problem with this model is that it has practically no applications in real life. That doesn't prevent them from believing that they have a moral right to have this model universally put into practice, to the detriment of everyone.

Fascism is a law you must buy insurance. It doesn't get more fascist than that.

Mott the Hoople
11-24-2009, 10:27 PM
What's funny is deep at some level Watermark knows he is wrong, yet he keeps going anyway.That's what seperates him from Dixie. You KNOW Dixie believes in his bullshit! LOL

Mott the Hoople
11-24-2009, 10:31 PM
Debunked because even while trumpeting her success in gaining $300 MILLION in additional federal funds for LA, she SAYS it had nothing to do with her vote.

And, of course, you believe it because .... umm why exactly is it you believe her? Because she is a democrat? Or because she voted the way you wanted her to vote?

But, while you have your dumb cap on, wanna buy some LA swamp land? Going cheap. I'll even get them to subsidize your purchase with some of that $300 million.
No, because I went to the pages in the Bill that were referenced and guess what? Absolutely nothing was mentioned about Landrieu, Louisianna, any money, Katrina or rebuilding New Orleans what so ever. It was on a totally unrelated matter. Someone just flat out lied about it.

SmarterthanYou
11-25-2009, 04:57 AM
No, because I went to the pages in the Bill that were referenced and guess what? Absolutely nothing was mentioned about Landrieu, Louisianna, any money, Katrina or rebuilding New Orleans what so ever. It was on a totally unrelated matter. Someone just flat out lied about it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html


On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Mott the Hoople
11-25-2009, 12:56 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html
Do what I did. Go to page 432 of the bill.

SmarterthanYou
11-25-2009, 01:06 PM
Do what I did. Go to page 432 of the bill.

link? to the bill?

Damocles
11-25-2009, 02:18 PM
link? to the bill?
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Damocles
11-25-2009, 02:25 PM
Here is the section number and the phrase found on page 432:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.


And here is the whole section under that title:


17 Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
18 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
19 2001(b)(2), is amended—
20 (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by
21 striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections
22 (y) and (aa)’’; and
23 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub24
section:
433
O:\ERN\ERN09C11.xml [file 2 of 9] S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning
2 January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percent3
age for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjust4
ment State shall be equal to the following:
5 ‘‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part
6 of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to
7 the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage
8 determined for the fiscal year without regard to this
9 subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 per10
cent of the number of percentage points by which
11 the Federal medical assistance percentage deter12
mined for the State for the fiscal year without re13
gard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less
14 than the Federal medical assistance percentage de15
termined for the State for the preceding fiscal year
16 after the application of only subsection (a) of section
17 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the pre18
ceding fiscal year) and without regard to this sub19
section, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c)
20 of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.
21 ‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any suc22
ceeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies
23 to the State, the Federal medical assistance percent24
age determined for the preceding fiscal year under
25 this subsection for the State, increased by 25 per434
O:\ERN\ERN09C11.xml [file 2 of 9] S.L.C.
1 cent of the number of percentage points by which
2 the Federal medical assistance percentage deter3
mined for the State for the fiscal year without re4
gard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less
5 than the Federal medical assistance percentage de6
termined for the State for the preceding fiscal year
7 under this subsection.
8 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery
9 FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
10 the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at
11 any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President
12 has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the
13 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist14
ance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that
15 every county or parish in the State warrant individual and
16 public assistance or public assistance from the Federal
17 Government under such Act and for which—
18 ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part
19 of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to
20 the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage
21 determined for the State for the fiscal year without
22 regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less
23 than the Federal medical assistance percentage de24
termined for the State for the preceding fiscal year
25 after the application of only subsection (a) of section
435
O:\ERN\ERN09C11.xml [file 2 of 9] S.L.C.
1 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the pre2
ceding fiscal year) and without regard to this sub3
section, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c)
4 of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3
5 percentage points; and
6 ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any suc7
ceeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies
8 to the State, the Federal medical assistance percent9
age determined for the State for the fiscal year with10
out regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is
11 less than the Federal medical assistance percentage
12 determined for the State for the preceding fiscal
13 year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage
14 points.
15 ‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage de16
termined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State
17 under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title
18 (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital
19 payments described in section 1923 and payments under
20 this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described
21 in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments
22 under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or
23 payments under title XXI.’’.

SmarterthanYou
11-25-2009, 02:26 PM
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

thanks. interesting that it's not found. this is the reid bill?

mary could be pissed.

FUCK THE POLICE
11-25-2009, 02:28 PM
I imagine they just listed the wrong page for Mott to look up or Mott didn't understand what he was looking for properly.

Damocles
11-25-2009, 03:06 PM
thanks. interesting that it's not found. this is the reid bill?

mary could be pissed.
What do you mean it's "not found", the link works for me. Maybe you don't have Acrobat Reader...

SmarterthanYou
11-25-2009, 03:13 PM
What do you mean it's "not found", the link works for me. Maybe you don't have Acrobat Reader...

i found the bill. I didnt find the words 'major disaster' in the bill.

Damocles
11-25-2009, 03:15 PM
i found the bill. I didnt find the words 'major disaster' in the bill.
Look at page 423. It's in the title of the section I quoted.

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

The easiest way to get to 423 is to type it in at the top of the page and hit enter. You'll see it.

SmarterthanYou
11-25-2009, 03:39 PM
Look at page 423. It's in the title of the section I quoted.

seems we are both dyslexic. it's page 432, not 423. I am reading it now.

so mott, the 'debunking' is actually a lie? it seems that they did buy her vote.

Damocles
11-25-2009, 03:41 PM
LOL. Duh... Yeah. Page 432.

Topspin
12-04-2009, 06:19 AM
they need to slow down, Mary got us $100,000,000 for getting this far. She needs to squeeze those bastards for more money. BAM!!!!