The Class Action Fairness Act
House Vote.
There were many Democrat’s in both the Senate & House that voted for this bill. If things were “balanced”, you would think that there would be a few Republicans who would vote against this bill. But none in the Senate & only 1 in the House (from California).
Mr Soul
Could it be it’s not a bad bill??
Edit
Considering the 147 Democrats that voted against it I wouldn’t say it’s that great of a bill, Clark?
Anyway, it obviously a bill that most republican reps. agreed with, and most democrat’s didn’t, seems pretty balanced to me.
Where’s the off balance factor here? Am I missing something Mike?
Republicans say yes, Democrats say no, all is in harmony in my universe!
jerm
Clark - that’s one explanation for sure, but most of the votes go this way, but with less Democrat’s voting for them.
It was nice to see one lone voice in the Republican wilderness vote against this bill.
Mr Soul
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Feb. 17 2005,21:32) |
| Clark - that's one explanation for sure, but most of the votes go this way, but with less Democrat's voting for them. It was nice to see one lone voice in the Republican wilderness vote against this bill. Mr Soul |
He was problably sloggered and hit the wrong button! DOPE!
I wouldn't try to read into it too much, LOL.
jerm
The ACTUAL questions need to be what was in the bill and why he voted against it?
Maybe the bill didn’t open up enough natural territory to strip mining so he voted against it because he more. (…whatever the bill was)
Voting against something doesn’t mean you think it’s bad. Maybe it’s not bad enough.
| Quote (phoo @ Feb. 18 2005,12:57) |
| The ACTUAL questions need to be what was in the bill and why he voted against it? Maybe the bill didn't open up enough nautraul teritoy to stip mining so he voted against it because he more. (..whatever the bill wa) Voting against something doesn't mean you think it's bad. Maybe it's not bad enough. |
Hee hee, you silly Phoo. How else would campaign smear ads come about? "So and so voted for higher taxes 5280 times and voted against children 6543 times." When in reality they voted for the "Make Murder Illegal" bill which happened to have a tax increase on taxi cabs in New Roanoke New Jersey buried at the bottom of the bill.
Exactly!
When you take away the publics right to hold corporate america accountable for their “don’t give a shit about anything but $$$” ways then we are many steps closer to the autocratic state we are headed for under Shrub. Yes there are many frivolous lawsuits but most are thrown out by judges. There a WAAAAAYY more unfrivoulous damage suits that occur that need to have their day of judicial recourse. Over 80,000 people were impaired by bad medical practice last year and this bill will lessen the recourse that you and I have when and if it happens to us. So you take the money away from us and give it to the lawyers for the insurance companies. instead of us splitting it with our lawyers…either way the lawyers come out ahead. But WE deserve better from our greedy ass lawmakers…ever heard of the “gospel of wealth” we are quickly mioving away from the social gospel BACK to the gospel of wealth that pervaded our society before the progressive movement of the 30’s. progressive is good regressive is bad and G.Shrub is regressive. His most used word if you listen to him is UHH .
my rant
cheers
Cruiser:O 
I agree with you completely cruiser. This whole thing about frivolous law suits (and the way Bush et al spun it), is all about protecting big business interests that have lobbied Bush for these so-called “reforms”. But they’ve spun in such a way to make it look like it’s the trial lawyers & claimees who are at fault. Sure they may be a few greedy lawyers but that’s not the real problem.
If people don’t see this, well then, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink I say.
Mr Soul