Comments on: Day 284 of Mike Castle’s Betrayal of Delaware

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:36:27 +0000

I think the kids down the bar from me were drinking caginas. Something pink, anyway.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:31:52 +0000

If it’s a vote, I agree.

By: jason330

jason330 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:28:37 +0000

Ban that POS. What;s the big deal?

By: Brooke

Brooke — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:25:10 +0000

Cagina? Is that another spelling error, a vocab issue, what?

By: CinqueB

CinqueB — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:49:50 +0000

another emotional attack with nothing to back it up you sniveling cagina

By: cassandra_m

cassandra_m — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:04:19 +0000

Are you still here? Even after you lied about Sections 7201 and 7203? No one is reading your links until you admit that you were lying your ass off.

By: CinqueB

CinqueB — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:55:29 +0000

Geezer you are right and I am scared

By: CinqueB

CinqueB — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:53:54 +0000

Check this fact out, want a link?

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf

By: Unstable Isotope

Unstable Isotope — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:29:56 +0000

Yes, just look at the recent melamine in baby formula problem in China to see what insufficient consumer protections bring.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:24:46 +0000

Could I just say a word about “government interference in what we can and can’t buy”?

We count on that.

We can’t buy flour that’s full of plaster.

We can’t buy OTC medicines that are only colored water and gin.

We can’t buy flammable children’s pajamas.

We can’t buy those things, previously for sale, because the government prevents us. Many ‘free market” advocates would be all too happy to sell them, and many people are still finding ways to cheat themselves (like buying them on the Net.), but, on the whole, if we go to a store we can be reasonably certain a product we buy will be safe.

Horrible to think the evil government is involved in our daily purchases like that.

By: Unstable Isotope

Unstable Isotope — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:59:24 +0000

Castle could have proposed bills to cut costs at any time during the reign of Republicans in the House – since 1994.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:39:27 +0000

Thanks, Nemski. So he wants a bill that curbs costs. This one ain’t it, but then, they’ve never put anything that curbs costs on the table. He could have saved us all a lot of time by announcing this stance months ago.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:37:42 +0000

“READ THE BILL, DO SOME RESEARCH! Get up off your ass, think for yourself!”

With limited time — mine, at least, if not yours — it’s probably not worth the trouble. What comes out of conference committee is the only bill that actually matters.

By: nemski

nemski — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:33:27 +0000

Geezer, he tweeted this http://twitter.com/MikeCastle2010/status/5511149085 with the link to TNJ editorial.

From what I am reading the Repubs will all be voting NAY tonight.

BTW that’s the only thing he has tweeted today. Biggest bill in 9 months and he’s virtually silent.

By: Geezer

Geezer — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:26:26 +0000

Has Castle actually put forward his reasons for voting against it? If so, link please. If not, Cinque, you can only applaud his vote, not his reasons, which may not be yours. Indeed, I find it hard to believe Mike Castle suddenly cares if deadbeats get jail time.

On that embarrassing NJ editorial, please notice its analysis is shallower than that employed by most of the conservatives who bother posting here. Once upon a time the News Journal employed a wide variety of editorial writers, many with expertise in particular areas. The person who knew medicine and health care left more than a decade ago. They now have three people to do what was once done by six — and, as is the case in so many workplaces, that means they’re scrambling just to cover the basics, like reading the letters and putting headlines on them. There’s no time left for luxuries like studying 2,000-page bills.