Scott Brown Calls Out Obama Dems

[Rinata]

In very short order, Senator Brown is effectively utilizing his political influence to rebuke Obama's intended nuclear option on Obamacare...


YouTube - Scott Brown Reacts To Democrats Using Reconciliation To Pass Health Care

Nuclear option??? How many times do you stupid conservatives have to be told that that particular term is being used incorrectly by conservatives??? I love this piece from Media Matters on this topic:

As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.

To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.

Here's how the trick works:

Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.

Among others, the video has been picked up by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, CPAC "Blogger of the Year" Ed Morrissey, Matt Drudge, and, of course, Fox Nation:

In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.

This is absurd.

The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.

To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of "deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of conservatives attacking "freedom."

It would be about as honest.

"Nuclear Option" stupidity comes full circle | Media Matters for America

you never have an original thought do ya? you little kool aid drinker you. What does Media Matters have to say about the outrage displayed by the dimocwats when the Republicans used "reconcilliation"? Huh? can't hear ya??? Hello? "Reconcilliation is such a sweet non threatenings sorta word ain't it? That's why dimoncwats donna wanna hear about "nuclear options" all of a sudden innit?

Media Matters is only one of many sources I could have used. But it is one of my favorite sites because I usually find the truth. But then I want to know the truth, unlike you and your nimrod friends. And you are the one with no original thoughts, not I. Actually you have no thoughts at all, original or otherwise.

Why don't you respond to the issue I addressed instead of asking me questions?? Stupid and nonsensical questions, I might add. You have never displayed to me that you have enough sense to come in out of the rain, let alone understand any political issues. Just go back and watch The Simpsons. You're dead weight around here to me.

 

[Rinata]

In very short order, Senator Brown is effectively utilizing his political influence to rebuke Obama's intended nuclear option on Obamacare...


YouTube - Scott Brown Reacts To Democrats Using Reconciliation To Pass Health Care

Nuclear option??? How many times do you stupid conservatives have to be told that that particular term is being used incorrectly by conservatives??? I love this piece from Media Matters on this topic:

As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.

To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.

Here's how the trick works:

Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.

Among others, the video has been picked up by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, CPAC "Blogger of the Year" Ed Morrissey, Matt Drudge, and, of course, Fox Nation:

In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.

This is absurd.

The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.

To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of "deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of conservatives attacking "freedom."

It would be about as honest.

"Nuclear Option" stupidity comes full circle | Media Matters for America

To boil this down? Perhaps you MISSED what Obama has said on this topic, shithead...

He was For it, then against it, and FOR it as a Senator?

Media matters? Tell Mr. Shithead Soros that *I* said hello...

As a senator, President Obama wasn't so keen on 'reconciliation'

By Other Voices

March 01, 2010, 4:07AM

The nation watched with great interest the kabuki political theater called the health care summit. The president advanced the notion that both sides were ever so close to agreement and should push forward because the people are demanding it.

With all due respect, the president is wrong. The two sides have fundamentally different approaches to addressing health care issues. President Barack Obama's portrayal of the situation as being essentially two sides of the same coin is a transparent attempt to portray any continuing opposition as being "simply political." Consequently, we should push forward using any means necessary.

The president concluded the summit by foreshadowing the next move: Congressional liberals will ram this 2,000-plus-page behemoth down our throats using "reconciliation," previously referred to as the "nuclear option" under a Republican Congress. (Gee, which term sounds nasty and which sounds nice?) At that time, Sen. Obama was vehemently opposed to this 51-vote tactic.

When, not if, liberals in Congress make this move, I trust President Obama will either veto the bill or provide a cogent argument explaining his sudden change of heart. Could the post-partisan president's former "principled" stand have been simply political?

___________________________

Try again. Double standards are passe. And *I* call YOU on it.

Other Voices??? Instead of you addressing the issues in my post, you ask me to defend my position because of a letter you read in "Other Voices"???? Are you nuts, stupid, or both???

Who wrote this LETTER in "Other Voices"??? I think it was the voice in your stupid, empty head.

 

[Rinata]

Did Mark Levin teach you that?

Observation. As to Levin? It would be an answer I would expect.

I'd love to give you a debate, T, and I could address everything you said. I hope you believe that.

But the ad homonym, along with your overall contempt for everyone who disagrees with your pov, leads me to believe it would be futile.

You said it!!! But the anger stems from frustration at always being wrong.

 

[Rinata]

Is not that simple. For one the President can veto any bill to remove the entitlement. And unless we have some unheard of change in congress even if the Republicans take both Houses back it wont be by enough to over ride a veto.

Not really. They can just refuse to authorize funds for the program. And Obama won't be president forever. At least not at this point. Remember, the healthcare program doesn't actually kick in until 2012 even though taxes start right away.

When the Congress changes over to Republican in 2010, I want them to order Obama to sign a Bill that repeals Health Care. If he doesn't, then I want Congress to not appropriate money for running the Obama government until he does. This is why we must STOP ObamaCare rather than having to deal with repealing it. It won't be fun but we must insist this be done.

Your post is ridiculous.

 

[California Girl]

Obama himself said, regarding healthcare, that using the reconciliation process, or nuclear option, or 50 + 1, or whatever you want to call it was against the founding principles of the country. He further said that any POTUS who used it would have lost the ability to govern.

When just one of the drooling koolaiders can explain to me how it was so wrong in 2007 to pass healthcare reform by 50 + 1, and now it is fine and dandy and perfectly in line with the founding principles, then I'll listen. Until then, you are shitting bricks.

Even Byrd, the Democrat who designed the process, says it is wrong to use it for healthcare.

Just one of you show some fucking backbone and give me a straight answer.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not going to happen cali. There are a dozen or so threads here that are asking that same question and not even one has gotten a straight answer yet. Everyone knows what it is but no one will voice it. There is no way for the dems to save face here so they believe that the only way to go is a slight of hand that forces the legislation passed the filibuster. It is a political hack move now as it was back when Jr. used it too. Why can’t the libs simply admit it? I would have a lot more respect for them if they could!

 

[SFC Ollie]

It really boils down to something very simple.

The democrats couldn't get this massive piece of crap passed while they had a super majority and now they want to pass on the blame to the Republicans and use force to get it passed.

Like I said, simple.

 

[Cuyo]

It really boils down to something very simple.

The democrats couldn't get this massive piece of crap passed while they had a super majority and now they want to pass on the blame to the Republicans and use force to get it passed.

Like I said, simple.

They did get it passed. Both houses, albiet different versions.

Now after they pass the Senate bill in the house, something that must happen before reconciliation becomes a factor, they will have already passed an identical bill in both houses.

What if Barack just signed the Senate bill? Would it still be the "Nuclear option" then? Reconciliation is only for minor changes after the bill has passed both houses.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they did not get "it" passed. They got a health care bill in the House barely with appropriate bribes. They got a health care bill in the Senate passed with appropriate bribes. Normally they would reconcile them and then each house would vote on the final bill.
But they are so far apart that they cannot be reconciled, with enough people on each side saying they will vote against the provisions in the other bill.
SO they have passed nothing meaningful yet.

 

[Sinatra]

And no reasoned liberal defense of the indefensible being attempted by Obama.

How...predictable.

 

[WillowTree]

Nuclear option??? How many times do you stupid conservatives have to be told that that particular term is being used incorrectly by conservatives??? I love this piece from Media Matters on this topic:

As we've documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the "nuclear option." Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The "nuclear option" was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.

Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation - notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren't quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly "dirty" process when they used it to pass President Bush's tax cuts. Multiple times.

To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.

Here's how the trick works:

Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:"Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote 'Nuclear Option' Is 'Arrogant' Power Grab Against the Founder's Intent." You can probably guess where this is going.

Among others, the video has been picked up by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, CPAC "Blogger of the Year" Ed Morrissey, Matt Drudge, and, of course, Fox Nation:

In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the "nuclear option" in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.

This is absurd.

The Democrats in the video are railing against the "nuclear option" as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video "laughable" and "unbelievable." I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.

To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of "deficits" to mean "freedom," then put together a reel of conservatives attacking "freedom."

It would be about as honest.

"Nuclear Option" stupidity comes full circle | Media Matters for America

you never have an original thought do ya? you little kool aid drinker you. What does Media Matters have to say about the outrage displayed by the dimocwats when the Republicans used "reconcilliation"? Huh? can't hear ya??? Hello? "Reconcilliation is such a sweet non threatenings sorta word ain't it? That's why dimoncwats donna wanna hear about "nuclear options" all of a sudden innit?

Media Matters is only one of many sources I could have used. But it is one of my favorite sites because I usually find the truth. But then I want to know the truth, unlike you and your nimrod friends. And you are the one with no original thoughts, not I. Actually you have no thoughts at all, original or otherwise.

Why don't you respond to the issue I addressed instead of asking me questions?? Stupid and nonsensical questions, I might add. You have never displayed to me that you have enough sense to come in out of the rain, let alone understand any political issues. Just go back and watch The Simpsons. You're dead weight around here to me.

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the ass, you wouldn't need "media fucking matters" if you actually cared about truth.

 

[Cuyo]

No, they did not get "it" passed. They got a health care bill in the House barely with appropriate bribes. They got a health care bill in the Senate passed with appropriate bribes. Normally they would reconcile them and then each house would vote on the final bill.
But they are so far apart that they cannot be reconciled, with enough people on each side saying they will vote against the provisions in the other bill.
SO they have passed nothing meaningful yet.

So, since at the moment we are attacking the system and not the bill itself....

What if they just passed the Senate bill in the House, and Barry signed, done deal? Would it be meaningful then?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, they did not get "it" passed. They got a health care bill in the House barely with appropriate bribes. They got a health care bill in the Senate passed with appropriate bribes. Normally they would reconcile them and then each house would vote on the final bill.
But they are so far apart that they cannot be reconciled, with enough people on each side saying they will vote against the provisions in the other bill.
SO they have passed nothing meaningful yet.

So, since at the moment we are attacking the system and not the bill itself....

What if they just passed the Senate bill in the House, and Barry signed, done deal? Would it be meaningful then?

Yes it would.
And if flying monkeys spewed out my ass that would be meaningful too. But they are about as likely to happen.

 

[Rinata]

you never have an original thought do ya? you little kool aid drinker you. What does Media Matters have to say about the outrage displayed by the dimocwats when the Republicans used "reconcilliation"? Huh? can't hear ya??? Hello? "Reconcilliation is such a sweet non threatenings sorta word ain't it? That's why dimoncwats donna wanna hear about "nuclear options" all of a sudden innit?

Media Matters is only one of many sources I could have used. But it is one of my favorite sites because I usually find the truth. But then I want to know the truth, unlike you and your nimrod friends. And you are the one with no original thoughts, not I. Actually you have no thoughts at all, original or otherwise.

Why don't you respond to the issue I addressed instead of asking me questions?? Stupid and nonsensical questions, I might add. You have never displayed to me that you have enough sense to come in out of the rain, let alone understand any political issues. Just go back and watch The Simpsons. You're dead weight around here to me.

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the ass, you wouldn't need "media fucking matters" if you actually cared about truth.

Your problem is that I don't care about your truth. Which is totally distorted. I prefer facts. You know, the real truth. Any idiot can say the real truth is false. And then never provide any reasons why. You ought to know.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think it is all Bush's fault.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Media Matters is only one of many sources I could have used. But it is one of my favorite sites because I usually find the truth. But then I want to know the truth, unlike you and your nimrod friends. And you are the one with no original thoughts, not I. Actually you have no thoughts at all, original or otherwise.

Why don't you respond to the issue I addressed instead of asking me questions?? Stupid and nonsensical questions, I might add. You have never displayed to me that you have enough sense to come in out of the rain, let alone understand any political issues. Just go back and watch The Simpsons. You're dead weight around here to me.

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the ass, you wouldn't need "media fucking matters" if you actually cared about truth.

Your problem is that I don't care about your truth. Which is totally distorted. I prefer facts. You know, the real truth. Any idiot can say the real truth is false. And then never provide any reasons why. You ought to know.

A "Media Matters" fan is extolling the virtues of truth?

Too fuckin funny.

 

[Rinata]

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you in the ass, you wouldn't need "media fucking matters" if you actually cared about truth.

Your problem is that I don't care about your truth. Which is totally distorted. I prefer facts. You know, the real truth. Any idiot can say the real truth is false. And then never provide any reasons why. You ought to know.

A "Media Matters" fan is extolling the virtues of truth?

Too fuckin funny.

\

Great!!! Then go laugh yourself sick. I mean literally.

 

[Sinatra]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUqVzlmHzk]YouTube - Scott Brown Reacts To Democrats Using Reconciliation To Pass Health Care[/ame]