Thursday, April 10, 2008

M63- WHATS ALL THIS FOR

THE NEED TO FREE A GUILTY CONSCIENCE
Do you see any rhyme or reason for this bit to be printed? Why say anything? It must be an outlet for feelings of guilt. To go to the local paper and defend something that isn't even an issue is as the 'shrinks' would say is guilt shedding.
Here is the story..... Story Here
Palacios: Public interest first before politics
LAWMAKERS
should focus on what is good for the commonwealth and not just what can advance their political ambitions, according to a legislator who belongs to the House minority bloc.
Now, if you take some thought to this line what he is saying is something that is a given, it is what is expected of them, it doesn't need to be said. So why say it?
Rep. Raymond D. Palacios said early declaration of candidacies may lead people to think that “you cannot focus on your primary function as lawmaker.”
Well I've got some news for you buddy, in case you are so naive as not to know this. The public doesn't trust you from the time you are elected. The voters know you have only your own interest at heart. We already know you are there for your own agenda and yourself only. It is quiet apparent to all of us, and you confirm this over and over again. Why did you feel it was time to tell us what you think you should be doing, feeling guilty, I guess.
Still, he added, “our constituents are educated enough to decide who are those should be given another mandate.”
Maybe you are realizing you can't pull the wool over our eyes anymore, again a display of guilt.
Palacios, Covenant-Saipan, said he “senses” that there are factions within the House Republican bloc, and he is hoping this will not hamper the performance of his GOP colleagues. Palacios at the same time said all House members are not allowing political affiliations to affect the passage of legislative measures.
This house has been 'hampered' since it was sworn in, election promises were tossed aside the voting public disregarded. Just take the issue of the gaming bills that have been brought up 3 times, did you think the voters wanted it, right after rejecting it in the Nov. election. Did you ask the public what they thought?
He said the interest of the general public should always prevail during the deliberations on important bills.
Again isn't this a given, the standard operating procedures, why do you need to make that statement? Is it because you feel you are not following the standard protocol. Lets stick with the gaming bill for a moment. How is what you are doing now, ramrodding a bill through the house without ANY consideration by the public when you already know where we stand, how is this in the best of the 'general public'?
These statements reminds me of election rhetoric, same bullshit spewn during elections. This is telling me someone is positioning to run for something and the crap is flowing already.
He is satisfied with how the leadership led by Speaker Arnold I. Palacios, R-Saipan, is running the House.
That last statement I won't touch, take it at face value and think about who it benefits, us or him?
.....GED.....

1 comment:

lil_hammerhead said...

What kind of a nimrod would even suggest that they're satisfied with the way the House is being run? This is the same house that won't permit amendments to cut government waste from being heard on the floor during discussion on the austerity bill.

Satisfied?

If he's "satisfied" he has extremely lower expectations for the Legislature than the public has.