Free Time Makes Happy Act (Failed)

[AndrewTX]

Hello to Atlasia Mitt Romney.

Oh good! Even more reason to vote for him.

No suprise. You have a taste for a people without a political principles, Isaac

Easy, Kal. That's a bit over the top don't you think?

IMHO, let's just say a Mitt Romney comparison is unfairly stretching it; that said, while Chris Shays may be Andrew's political hero, right now he reminds me more of Rob Simmons.

Can we take that as a campaign promise, Senator Andrew, to support this bill in the future once the economy recovers? If so, that's certainly encouraging.

If we had a better economy that could handle this kind of bill, I would fully support it.

[Vepres]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly consider vacation time to be the most interesting topic.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly consider vacation time to be the most interesting topic.

Oh, so now Vepres gets to be the person that defines what is controversial or not.

'Kay.

You can't just admit that, you know, you were wrong, or anything.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly consider vacation time to be the most interesting topic.

Oh, so now Vepres gets to be the person that defines what is controversial or not.

'Kay.

You can't just admit that, you know, you were wrong, or anything.

Just so you know I have a great deal on both stones and glass panes this week.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly consider vacation time to be the most interesting topic.

Yes, we should abolish any free time, cuz that an evil soschalizm.

[Vepres]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly consider vacation time to be the most interesting topic.

Yes, we should abolish any free time, cuz that an evil soschalizm.

That's not my point.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly consider vacation time to be the most interesting topic.

Yes, we should abolish any free time, cuz that an evil soschalizm.

That's not my point.

And what was your point or a lack of thereof?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Nothing controversial is ever introduced anymore! Everything always passes or fails by large majorities! [/Vepres]

     To be honest, when I first saw this bill I thought for sure that it was headed to 8-2 or 7-3 passage. I was quite shocked that it actually failed.

Hello to Atlasia Mitt Romney.

Oh good! Even more reason to vote for him.

No suprise. You have a taste for a people without a political principles, Isaac

Easy, Kal. That's a bit over the top don't you think?

IMHO, let's just say a Mitt Romney comparison is unfairly stretching it; that said, while Chris Shays may be Andrew's political hero, right now he reminds me more of Rob Simmons.

Can we take that as a campaign promise, Senator Andrew, to support this bill in the future once the economy recovers? If so, that's certainly encouraging.

     Is this a promise that the economy would recover in a hypothetical AndrewCT Administration?

[Badger]

The vote switching certainly indicates Yank and Andrew didn't want to be on the losing side of this measure, but would kill it if they had the chance (and did).

It indicates as president Andrew will campaign moderate, but govern right wing. It's only one vote, but discouraging nonetheless.

And before anyone wants to cry about the "JCP attack machine", please note this is the first criticism I've had of Andrew since he's run, and it's hardly without basis.

yummm, your eyes really did taste good.


Actually I fully expected this to pass from the start. I voted Aye and then switched to Nay for two reason:
1. To see if any of our weak press would notice and make an issue out of it, No
2. To throw my good friend SPC a bone.

As I said, your false vote, threw me off kilter, even after I pointed it out. So I expected a tie or a 6-4 passage. Either led to passage. So I played a little game with my vote. But since you have accused me of strategery and other illicit actions, buying votes and scandals and such for and such like, I have expropriated your eye balls from my dessert tonight.

This was my point. We added needed protections for small businesses and excluding part time workers, and appeared to have your support. You certainly didn't offer further objections to the bill as amended. If the bill was so unpalitable in the first place, why support it (or abstain in Andrew's case) in the first place? Just playing a "game" indeed in your case, and politics in Andrew's.

Both are certainly your right to do as senators, it's just not very respectable and I'm calling you each on it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The vote switching certainly indicates Yank and Andrew didn't want to be on the losing side of this measure, but would kill it if they had the chance (and did).

It indicates as president Andrew will campaign moderate, but govern right wing. It's only one vote, but discouraging nonetheless.

And before anyone wants to cry about the "JCP attack machine", please note this is the first criticism I've had of Andrew since he's run, and it's hardly without basis.

yummm, your eyes really did taste good.


Actually I fully expected this to pass from the start. I voted Aye and then switched to Nay for two reason:
1. To see if any of our weak press would notice and make an issue out of it, No
2. To throw my good friend SPC a bone.

As I said, your false vote, threw me off kilter, even after I pointed it out. So I expected a tie or a 6-4 passage. Either led to passage. So I played a little game with my vote. But since you have accused me of strategery and other illicit actions, buying votes and scandals and such for and such like, I have expropriated your eye balls from my dessert tonight.

This was my point. We added needed protections for small businesses and excluding part time workers, and appeared to have your support. You certainly didn't offer further objections to the bill as amended. If the bill was so unpalitable in the first place, why support it (or abstain in Andrew's case) in the first place? Just playing a "game" indeed in your case, and politics in Andrew's.

Both are certainly your right to do as senators, it's just not very respectable and I'm calling you each on it.

No you aren't. There is nothing to call out. I frankly am getting sick and tired of being the only one who really is looking for ways to improve this game and this kind of sh**t is the thanks I get.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And for the record, the bill was unacceptable in these times. The protections themselves created yet a whole another problem by enouraging businesses to convert full time workers to part times then squeeze the same amount of work out of them. It was only after I looked at the limits after they were added that realized just how much of an effect they would have.

[Badger]

Actually I fully expected this to pass from the start. I voted Aye and then switched to Nay for two reason:
1. To see if any of our weak press would notice and make an issue out of it, No
2. To throw my good friend SPC a bone.

As I said, your false vote, threw me off kilter, even after I pointed it out. So I expected a tie or a 6-4 passage. Either led to passage. So I played a little game with my vote. But since you have accused me of strategery and other illicit actions, buying votes and scandals and such for and such like, I have expropriated your eye balls from my dessert tonight.

And for the record, the bill was unacceptable in these times. The protections themselves created yet a whole another problem by enouraging businesses to convert full time workers to part times then squeeze the same amount of work out of them. It was only after I looked at the limits after they were added that realized just how much of an effect they would have.

Kindly choose one version and stick with it. Preferably sans tantrum.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually I fully expected this to pass from the start. I voted Aye and then switched to Nay for two reason:
1. To see if any of our weak press would notice and make an issue out of it, No
2. To throw my good friend SPC a bone.

As I said, your false vote, threw me off kilter, even after I pointed it out. So I expected a tie or a 6-4 passage. Either led to passage. So I played a little game with my vote. But since you have accused me of strategery and other illicit actions, buying votes and scandals and such for and such like, I have expropriated your eye balls from my dessert tonight.

And for the record, the bill was unacceptable in these times. The protections themselves created yet a whole another problem by enouraging businesses to convert full time workers to part times then squeeze the same amount of work out of them. It was only after I looked at the limits after they were added that realized just how much of an effect they would have.

Kindly choose one version and stick with it. Preferably sans tantrum.

They are not contradictory. My final vote of Nay was what I intended to vote on this since before the vote opened. The Aye vote was the "little game".

The tantrum is either strategic or for my entertainment value, I will determine when and where to unleash my furry.

If were are "calling people out" when the hell are you going to start doing your job, its been almost a week. If you have time to annoy and harrass me in a debate thread that is finished you have time to to atleast get started.