Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

On MSN Today

Discussion in 'Legal' started by OkieGentleman, Nov 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OkieGentleman

    OkieGentleman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2012
  2. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Unfortunately the article said nothing about how the funds associated with the bill were to be spent, nor did it state which spending rules the bill would violate. Without knowing that we don't know if killing the bill was a good thing or a bad thing.
     
  3. tyeo098

    tyeo098 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    GOP against the bill, Democrats for it?

    Something smells fishy...
     
  4. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    It's a classic media tactic: only highlight part of the bill, but do not provide the necessary information to decide on the entire bill.

    If they voted for the entire bill, the media would be screaming how the GOP allowed Bambi to be hunted.
     
  5. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Obviously, those senators know something about those "conservation" aspects of the bill that we don't know. MSN certainly won't spill the beans if it makes those opposing senators look good. We need to know more.

    Look at the politicking going on here as well. The left loves to wrap nasty, unpopular agenda in issues that are politically difficult for conservatives to turn down. It's a loose-loose situation: We loose if it is passed and more government spending is hoisted upon our backs, and we loose if we pass up the chance to hunt in more places, bring in trophies bagged years ago, and our lead ammo is not better protected.

    Woody
     
  6. OkieGentleman

    OkieGentleman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    53
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
    An apology to the other members

    I wish to apologize to the other members of this forum for not following proper etiquette in introducing this subject. I was so angry at the article on the MSN site that I forgot to stop and look harder at the source of the material. I also used some symbols to indicate my opinion of our politicians that I should not have use on this forum. So please consider this my formal apology.
     
  7. Kush

    Kush Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    Wow another article about legislation that doesn't include the bill number. Do the reporters think they can give you a better explanation that if you read the bill yourself?
     
  8. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    How did the bill provide for the funding? That would mean yet another tax increase
     
  9. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    A better article with more clarification
     
  10. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Whatever the purpose, I object to the Feral Government buying more of our land, even if it is under the guise of preserving wetlands for water foul. Once the Feral Government owns the land, it's a short step to prohibit hunting upon those lands by whatever bureaucracy is "in charge" of those lands.

    Woody
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page