Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752138)

What bill number is this? HR 258 as I found it is...

H.R. 258: To require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration...
112th CongressThis is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.

Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 112th Congress, in 2011-2012.

The titles of bills are written by the bill's sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself. GovTrack does not editorialize bill summaries.


2011-2012


Track H.R. 258
This feed includes all major activity on this bill and its amendments, references in the Congressional Record, and relevant upcoming committee meetings.
Preview Feed >


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary Source
See H.R. 258 on THOMAS for the official source of information on this bill or resolution.


To require the Office of Management and Budget to prepare a crosscut budget for restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, to require the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and implement an adaptive management plan, and for other purposes.

Overview
Sponsor: Rep. Rob Wittman [R-VA1](no cosponsors)
Cosponsors:


Text: Full Text
Status: Introduced Jan 7, 2011
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee ...
House Vote ...
Senate Vote ...
Signed by President ...

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Jan 8, 2011 6:25AM]
Last Action: Jan 7, 2011: Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-258

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752143)

:zz: Blaming a Republican congressman for introducing a bill is make believe?

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752138)

What bill number is this? HR 258 as I found it is..

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752141)

nascar does it most of the time. nascar is always slamming the democrats. I guess nascars beloved republicans are a perfect political party.

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 752135)

it's a crappy law, who cares who put it up? another resolution pushed forth that does nothing to grow the economy, or build jobs... it's garbage like that which will assure that the reps majority in the house won't last past the next election. they take their chance to do something worthwhile, and produce a bs resolution like that. bravo.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752141)

Riot does it most of the time. Riot is always slamming the Republicans. I guess Riot's beloved Democrats are a perfect political party.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752145)

Did I say introducing a bill is make believe? You only want to see whatever you want to. You speak so highly of the Democrats all the time. Are they a perfect political party? We dont need to mention Charlie Rangel. You mention the Republican who did the honorable thing and resigned. The last time I looked good old Charlie was still serving in DC. What happened to Pelosi's bs talk about ethics? I guess it is ok for Rangel not to pay taxes for all these years.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752153)

I never spoke highly of Rangel's breaches of ethics. Did I?

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 752147)

now, is that a more palatable post? i've said to riot that i thought she wasn't evenhanded, that she often seems to be cheerleading one party while critical of the other. you're the same way! funny that you accuse her of doing that, and you do the same-only for the other side. in other words, pot meet kettle! but, like i've read and thought was spot on, and said on here before: how great the sin when someone else commits it. now, tell me how you're able to discuss each issue, rather than always take one party's side. now, don't really try, as that's a rhetorical question.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752156)

When did I post that sherlock?

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 752158)

you didn't. i took what you wrote about riot, and changed the appropriate names to you and your party. now, do you understand? you calling out someone for talking good only about one side, and only attacking one side is downright hilarious-as well as hypocritical. you do that every day! every post. you attack everything done by obama and the dems as being a bad thing, and everything done by the reps as a good thing. it's not! just like your attempt to bash obama over pell grants. not one person has agreed with you thus far. your attempt at attacking him in that respect failed miserably, as his points are well made.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752159)

Just curious about it. People are entitled to thier opinions. The Pell Grant thread I was trying to gauge other people's view on it. Whether in agreement or disagreement. You don't feel that Riot is always attacking the Republican Party?

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 752163)

does it matter? sometimes i agree with her, sometimes i don't. sometimes i think she gives dems far too much credit. sometimes i think reps not enough.
but, ask yourself that same question. are you always attacking dems? if so, why? surely you don't think one party has all the answers, and the other none? if you don't think she's right, how can you be right by always opposing? think about it. some dems sometimes vote with reps, and vice versa. that should tell you that you can't just lump them all together.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752168)

Very true what you just said. My opinion is that Riot feels that the Dems can do no wrong. Riot brought about the person who resigned over some pics and was a Republican. Yet no mention is made of Charlie Rangel who comitted a far more serious offense and is still serving.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752180)

Strange you completely ignore my answer to you, in favor of what you'd prefer to think in spite of what I say.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752168)

Very true what you just said. My opinion is that Riot feels that the Dems can do no wrong. Riot brought about the person who resigned over some pics and was a Republican. Yet no mention is made of Charlie Rangel who comitted a far more serious offense and is still serving.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752185)

Ever watch the movie A Few Good Men? You play the Colonel. Remember what Tom Cruise told the Colonel? Did you not bring up the man who resigned over the pics of bad taste?

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752200)

Yes, in passing - and with admiration for his actions accepting responsibility. And I also said some bad things about Rangel, if I recall.

Do I attack the Republicans all the time, and the Dems rarely? YES, I DO! After years of financially contributing, political action walking neighborhoods, supporting the party and candidates, going to the country party meetings - YES, I DO! The current incarnation of the Republican party is an utter disappointment and laughingstock to me. Do I think the Dems perfect? Nope. Do I embrace a progressive agenda? Hardly. Did I vote Obama? YES, I DID! Gladly!

Not that I think that what I actually say and do, will affect what you say I say and do.

Originally Posted by Nascar1966 (Post 752201)

You want to attack the Republicans all the time, expect me to continue attacking your beloved money spending Democrats. You dont think the Dems are a disappointment and laughing stock? Im about to fall out of my chair from laughing very hard. I gladly voted for McCain.

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 752144)

i think it maybe be 358. but yeah, let's worry about the resolution number, rather than the subject. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 751942)

Doreen thinks:


Ah. Then I'll put you clearly into the religious bigot category.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752012)

Oh, please, the drama you create is too much - you were not compared to Hitler, and you know it.



Hate? Naw. Unlike you, I don't care what other people's religions are. I am completely intolerant of overtly stated religious hate and bigotry. Yes, indeed. Had enough of that crap. As have most other Americans. But you are free to have the "last word".

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 752031)

that's the thing, what egypt has begun may turn out to be a good thing. that's why we have to do everything we can to nudge them in the right direction, which they seem to be doing already. keep them on track, get a positive outcome-and others will follow.
instead of us propping up dictators, we should have been encouraging stuff like this all along. our foreign policy has been a disgrace for years, now we can set things aright. i hope.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 752259)

one thing is true. George Bush II understood all this.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 752255)

So you think a religion that treats women as poorly as the Muslim religion does is a good one?

Its probably the worst religion going... though they all have major issues.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752252)

I would have never asked for a correction on the bill number if I wasn't planning on reading it. And I never was really worried. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

BTW if a clause is in there stating a hospital refusing treatment to a dying woman, in an emergency, if part of that treatment terminates a pregnancy, is legal, it's embarrassing. Though I suspect this is some sort of huffington hyperbole based on exemptions for catholic hospitals.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752254)

Just read the bill (it's short) and low and behold my suspicions were correct. I will take it over to the appropriate thread.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752293)

Well, no. Your suspicions were not correct ;)

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752296)

I did as you always request before being requested and opened a new thread. And yes they were correct.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752286)

No, I don't think a religion that treats women poorly is a good one - like how some Christians dictate what a woman can do with her body. You're in the category, too.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752305)

Your comparison between the treatment of muslim women and christians dictating what a woman does with her body is very telling. Those christians (you speak of) feel as though abortion is murder and their religion tells them so. Believe it or not their motivation is not in controlling women but preserving a life. Personally I think they should be responsible for themselves but can understand them not wanting their money to be used in what they consider a muder. Unlike their muslim counterpart they are not trying to tell a woman she can't date, drive, who to marry, how to dress, where they can go and who they can talk to. They also don't kill their daughters to preserve their honor and certainly don't circumcise their little girls. Though some Christians admittedly do insist on marrying a virgin.

But yea I see how you think they are similar :eek:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752308)

You didn't understand what I said. Again.

My comparison was that I think all religions put strange controls on their adherents, and some in all religions use their religion to treat women poorly.

My comparison was not that I think what some Muslims and what some Christians do are similar or equal in "badness", it was not a comparison of relative requirements between two different religions.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 752309)

the comparison was similar to a drop of water in my sink and the Pacific Ocean.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752286)

No, I don't think a religion that treats women poorly is a good one - like how some Christians dictate what a woman can do with her body. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the post you quoted. A more telling relationship would be you thinking that all Muslims treat women poorly. That's pretty right on. You're in the category, too.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 752295)

Can you explain how you arrived at the figure of 100,000,000?