?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2012   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Missouri

She's really right about this.

Posted on 2010.03.03 at 20:22

Comments:


(Anonymous) at 2010-03-05 04:21 (UTC) (Link)

rachel maddow commentary

Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is wonderful.
Jonathan
theservant at 2010-03-05 04:42 (UTC) (Link)

Re: rachel maddow commentary

You are welcome, anonymous commenter!
jonnymoon at 2010-03-05 22:38 (UTC) (Link)
It's not going to happen. She has the Maddcow disease.

Even if it does, it will be dead on arrival, since the reconcilliation process requires review, and on review, it will be null and void.

Even if it clears that hurdle, every democrat and RINO who voted for it will find themselves out on their bums come November, when a re-awakened electorate corrects the massive mistake they made in the last election and votes out every incumbent and sitting democrat, and then we repeal it.

So don't sit around toasting yourselves with coolaid and white wine too much...this thing isn't over, even if Obama cheats. It will be the bane of every liberal progressive who voted for it.

Jonathan
theservant at 2010-03-05 22:47 (UTC) (Link)
Except that that's not the point. She isn't talking about the merit or lack of merit of the health care reform bill, or even of the process; she's talking about the fact that several senior and respected GOP senators are going around telling blatant lies about the bill and its passage and the process that may be used to pass it, and no one seems to mind this too terribly much.
jonnymoon at 2010-03-06 18:03 (UTC) (Link)
Sorry, can you be more specific about the lies? Perhaps you can repeat them here, instead of just alluding to these fictions?
Jonathan
theservant at 2010-03-06 23:49 (UTC) (Link)
Among other things, that reconciliation is all that unusual, that most of these senators have not used it, that it is generally used for things that have bipartisan support, and that it has mostly been used in the past for minor budgetary concerns. Those things were claimed by Orrin Hatch in his Washington Post editorial which was not fact checked, apparently.

In addition, while there is a difference between hypocrisy and lying, they are certainly related. Several GOP senators have lately voted against things that they themselves proposed just to prevent the senate from passing anything. Examples of this are John McCain voting against the deficit commission, and Jim Bunning doing whatever he did last week, when last time this happened he not only extended unemployment with deficit spending, but bragged about it in a press release.
jonnymoon at 2010-03-08 18:23 (UTC) (Link)
Reconcilliation, when starting new legislation and certainly legislation on this scale, IS unusual. That they are using a parlimentary procedure to pass legislation, and legislation that is so monumental and harmful to this country, on this scale, is more than just unusual, it is a travesty of procedure and a blatant slap in the face of the majority of this country who does NOT want it. That they are using a back-door method to pass a bill which is full of bribery and graft of an unprecedented size is nothing short of corrupt.

Several GOP senators voted against this BILL, so saying that they voted against their own ideas is disingenous...the BILL is what they voted against, and primarily because it's full of bribes and graft! Now, if the power-mad trio over there had started over with their ideas, that would be different, but they won't.

Of course they won't and we all know why...(that is, those of us in the "Party of KNOW")...it's because this BILL that they created behind closed doors is NOT about healthcare at all...it's about a government takeover of healthcare AND OTHER THINGS. If it weren't, they wouldn't be so hell-bent on passing IT, they'd be willing to start over with only 20 pages instead of 2000 pages of graft and loopholes put in for the express purpose of bribing senators and representatives to vote for it.

But you won't admit that, because you are brainwashed by the government controlled media, and you refuse to examine this situation for what it is...you are as much of an ideologue as that false messiah in the Whitehouse.

If you had any sort of objectivity, you'd understand that it's not healthcare reform we're against...we're against his BILL.

And whatever Rachael Madcow says, or whatever that queer Olberman says, it's about the BILL...pull your head out of your fourth point of contact and figure that out.




And I'm STILL waiting for a recitation of those lies. And this time, make them true lies, not the regurtitated talking points of Ken Olberman.
Jonathan
theservant at 2010-03-08 19:00 (UTC) (Link)
I told you what the lies were. If you can't hear them, that's your problem. I suspect hearing things that you don't like is not your strong suit.
I wasn't even talking about the bill per se, I was talking about the lies concerning reconciliation. Reconciliation is not unusual, and has been done for large bills before, like the Bush tax cuts. It is a radical parliamentary procedure where you actually can pass things with a simple majority.

Why do you think Olbermann is gay?

Edited at 2010-03-08 07:02 pm (UTC)
jonnymoon at 2010-03-08 19:31 (UTC) (Link)
You said:

"Among other things, that reconciliation is all that unusual, that most of these senators have not used it, that it is generally used for things that have bipartisan support, and that it has mostly been used in the past for minor budgetary concerns."

You said that these were lies, and I said that reconcilliation, done for legislation is unusual, while done for addressing budget points is not. The senators claim that it is unusual when done in creating new, non-budget legislation. That's not a lie.

Therefore, you have not yet stated any lies. You also totally ignored that a) it is not done for major legislation, and b) it is not done to overcome an electorate who doesn't want such legislation.

The truth of it is, this is being done "mob-rules" style, simply so Obozo can get his legislation passed, and it is being done over the voices of a majority of Americans.

Perhaps it is not me who is incapable of perceiving the truth?

Finally, I don't think I said he was gay. I said he was queer. While gays are queer, not all queer people are gay. If I said he was gay, I misspoke, since I have no proof (other than he queer manerisms).
Jonathan
theservant at 2010-03-08 19:35 (UTC) (Link)
Democracy is mob rules style. It is majority rules. It is not that unusual to do reconciliation for legislation, and many of the senators who are now squeaking and beeping about it have voted for reconciliation on legislative bills before. When Orin Hatch wrote that reconciliation was damaging to democracy, he was lying. When he wrote that reconciliation was done only for minor budget bills which had large bipartisan support, he was lying.

What are Olbermann's queer mannerisms?
jonnymoon at 2010-03-08 19:56 (UTC) (Link)
The United States of America is not a Democracy. We are a Republic...we work by representation. That was set up in the Constitution so we could AVOID mob rule. The rules of Congress were ALSO set up so we could AVOID mob rule, something you and every crook up there seems to be ignoring. Tragically, Obozo seems intent on using the Constitution as toilet paper...or throwing it out altogether in favor of Russia's constitution. Contrary to the more ill-informed opinions out there, The Constitution is not a "living document"...the original writers knew exactly what they were doing.

To settle your other mistake, it isn't unusual to do reconcilliation for budget related items, or legislation related to budget items. This new legislation, over 2000 pages worth, is not a "simple budget" reconcilliation. It's a back-door cheat to defeat normal parlimentary procedure. Also, never in the history of Congress have we had such a blantant power grab as we have today, so it would be easy by comparison to call every other action as having "bipartisan" support--even if it only had one more of the opposing side on board.

Finally, if you cannot sense which of Ken's mannerisms are queer, then perhaps you are one of those people who are incapable of sensing the verbal and non-verbal clues that people usually pick up on when they interact. I suspect that you have gay friends who had to tell you they were gay?
Previous Entry  Next Entry