Turn on Rachel Maddow

[☭proletarian☭]

Feel free to cite any lies I've told.

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.

That little chunk of flotsam didn't last the night.

 

[DiamondDave]

Feel free to cite any lies I've told.

Deception by omission

And don't forget that a little thing such as context means a lot...

May work on other doe eyed college pukes, easily duped by demonetization of 'the man' during some bong hit party... not gonna fly in the real world

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Context?

The context was provided.

 

[Maple]

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.

 

[DiamondDave]

And you will continue to leave out the fact that it is indeed supposed to be used for budgetary issues.. continue to leave out that opposition is that it is not being used for budgetary issues this time.. and that opponents are against it because of these very points... showing the basis for your and other winger's deception

budget reconciliation process
Maybe something you should remember

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

hmm...


I wonder how medicare part b and the Bush tax cuts impacted our economy

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Cons know a lot about Rachel seeing as how they never saw her.

 

[uscitizen]

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?

"the Constitution intends the opposite"
-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.

Is it a constitutional or rules/procedure kind of thing?

 

[Avatar4321]

Feel free to cite any lies I've told.

Well, for one that Senator Hatch was lying, or that any Republican is for that matter.

Reconciliation is for budgets. Not legislation.

See, when it's used for a budget, which is what it's meant for, it's not hypocritical or lying to say that it's not appropriate or good for legislation, which is what it's not for.

Now, either you guys are too stupid to understand the difference between a budget and legislation. Or you are lying through your teeth when you claim Republicans are hypocrites and lying because you know for a fact that reconciliation is not allowed for legislation.

Now do you have the intellectual honesty to retract your lies? or do you want the world to know you are nothing but a hack?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Saying so doesn't make it so. Looks like the other posters here have outed your deception and lies.
Stick a fork in you, you're done.

 

[California Girl]

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.

It would be great if you could remind Obama of that fact. Thanks.

 

[California Girl]

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?

 

[jillian]

i'm just glad that this is the most ethical and transparent congress evah.

It's transparent.

And it's ethical.

What's unethical is the repubs playing the game of 'no' opting out just for their own political gain. imo, what's unethical is threatening to filibuster every bill. 'bout time the dems found their genitalia.

personally, i'd have made them filibuster and stand there reading the phone book for two and three days at a time. but this is the next best thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

i'm just glad that this is the most ethical and transparent congress evah.

It's transparent..

Clear as mud.

And it's ethical.

Compared to the U.N. maybe.

 

[Article 15]

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?

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

It is unconstitutional when used to legislate. That is the opinion of the DEMOCRATIC Senator who designed it.... Senator Byrd.

Whether or not one agrees with the bill, surely any decent HONEST person would be against using an unconstitutional process in order to ram through a bill that has little support - on either side of the house - and, more importantly, in the damned country.

This is just not acceptable for any party.

 

[Sarah G]

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 recorded it last night. She is really good at this, with the help of her great intern research staff, that is. She should be the host of MTP and put David Gregory in her spot.

I'll watch it later when I get home.

 

[bodecea]

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.

This has to do with her excellent research abilities......how?