&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
Feel free to cite any lies I've told.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She's also the liar-by-omission who got the "R in COBRA is for reconciliation" talking point going, while conveeeeeeeeniently failing to mention that the "B" is for BUDGET.so I went and watched maddow rant about republican hypocrisy.. wonder why she didn't tell us what the demoncwats said when Republicans used "reconcilliation" she's the liar,, by omission.
☭proletarian☭;2057984 said:
Feel free to cite any lies I've told.
Rachel rocks. She has given the Cons fits recently. Nothing like seeing them on tape doing the things they condemn.
BTW- the only times reconciliation has been used is to change some numbers. It's never been used to shove a bill that would take over 6% of our economy down the throats of Americans that don't want it.
Cons know a lot about Rachel seeing as how they never saw her.Rachel rocks. She has given the Cons fits recently. Nothing like seeing them on tape doing the things they condemn.
The only problem is that you and the three other libs on this thread are the only ones still watching her. Her ratings are down the crapper along with her radio AIR America program which is belly up.
BTW- the only times reconciliation has been used is to change some numbers. It's never been used to shove a bill that would take over 6% of our economy down the throats of Americans that don't want it.
That happens and it will be 50 years before another liberal or progressive gets elected to the congress or the senate and never again as POTUS, and this when 70%of Americans polled want them to start over on health care and trash the plans out of congress and the senate.
☭proletarian☭;2057664 said:"the Constitution intends the opposite"☭proletarian☭;2057626 said:She's currently documenting reconciliation- and the Republicans using it and passing bills only because Cheney broke the tie.
Something to keep in mind when they call it unconstitutional.
who called reconciliation unconstitutional?
-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Former Reconciliation Supporter Hatch Attacks Reconciliation As Unconstitutional | TPMDC
Limbaugh declares reconciliation "not constitutional" | Media Matters for America
Not surprisingly, the Dems (the other head on the same beast) has said the same kinda shit in the past.
☭proletarian☭;2057984 said:
Feel free to cite any lies I've told.
Cons know a lot about Rachel seeing as how they never saw her.
☭proletarian☭;2057885 said:i don't think they call it unconstitutional. but they act like it's somehow 'not fair'.
... unless of course THEY do it.
Rachel did a great job.
It is a misuse of a procedure in the senate that was never meant for a big social program like this. Nor was it ever used for one by the GOP.
Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. No wonder you like her.
Um... yes, it was.
Also... what's your obsession with her sexuality?
You can read Orrin's masterpiece of deception here:
washingtonpost.com
Republicans don't seem to understand. When you become a senator, you are a senator for EVERYONE in your district. When you are President, you are president for everyone in the country.
Cons know a lot about Rachel seeing as how they never saw her.
Rachel is completely irrelevant to the facts here.
Reconciliation is not intended for anything other than budget. You know it, everyone else knows it. and it's completely dishonest to pretend that Rachel is the issue when no one cares what she says.
i'm just glad that this is the most ethical and transparent congress evah.
Clear as mud.i'm just glad that this is the most ethical and transparent congress evah.
It's transparent..
Compared to the U.N. maybe.And it's ethical.
Cons know a lot about Rachel seeing as how they never saw her.
Rachel is completely irrelevant to the facts here.
Reconciliation is not intended for anything other than budget. You know it, everyone else knows it. and it's completely dishonest to pretend that Rachel is the issue when no one cares what she says.
And THAT is the point. It is constitutional when used for budgetary matters. It is unconstitutional when used to legislate. What is hard with that?
Rachel is completely irrelevant to the facts here.
Reconciliation is not intended for anything other than budget. You know it, everyone else knows it. and it's completely dishonest to pretend that Rachel is the issue when no one cares what she says.
And THAT is the point. It is constitutional when used for budgetary matters. It is unconstitutional when used to legislate. What is hard with that?
I was under the impression that reconciliation can be used as long as it fits certain budgetary parameters. There are hoops they have to jump through to make it work but as long as they do so it's a legit use of it.
Sadly, it has come to this and I don't like it. It is clear the Republicans intend on continuing to demand concessions from the dems while at the same time being unwilling to support any compromised bill.
They are using Scott Boras negotiating techniques ...
If the GOP were really intersted in anything other than killing health care reform we wouldn't be where we are right now.
☭proletarian☭;2057626 said:She's currently documenting reconciliation- and the Republicans using it and passing bills only because Cheney broke the tie.
Something to keep in mind when they call it unconstitutional.
☭proletarian☭;2057626 said:She's currently documenting reconciliation- and the Republicans using it and passing bills only because Cheney broke the tie.
Something to keep in mind when they call it unconstitutional.
i don't think they call it unconstitutional. but they act like it's somehow 'not fair'.
... unless of course THEY do it.
Rachel did a great job.
It is a misuse of a procedure in the senate that was never meant for a big social program like this. Nor was it ever used for one by the GOP.
Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. No wonder you like her.