Reconciliation...

[skookerasbil]

Maddow really knows how to draw in the 792 k00ks who watch that show every night........

She knows damn well this bill hasnt a snowballs chance in hell........but she certainly doesnt want to take a show that according to cable news industry standards is "off the air" in the ratings dept......by talking about the fact that the House has zero chance of passing the Senate bill.

 

[skookerasbil]

Your a troll, and you wouldn't know what a debate was if it ***** slapped you in the face, smitty.
Carry on with your delusional blather......as you always do, and wonder why people walk away from your stupidity.

Smith is one of those fcukking miserable lefties who spends his whole life on the internet..........a social invalid with the backbone of a Hershey Bar. Note on any of his posts how he goes mental with the "liar" stuff..........like a grade school kid who doesnt know how to respond to getting his balls busted. Who cant see that guy running to the teacher as a kid? DUDE.........do I hit the nail on the head or what??

He was over on the now defunct MSNBC board pulling all the old tired sh!t stuff he pulls here............just the height of gayness.

 

[Meister]

Your a troll, and you wouldn't know what a debate was if it ***** slapped you in the face, smitty.
Carry on with your delusional blather......as you always do, and wonder why people walk away from your stupidity.

Smith is one of those fcukking miserable lefties who spends his whole life on the internet..........a social invalid with the backbone of a Hershey Bar. Note on any of his posts how he goes mental with the "liar" stuff..........like a grade school kid who doesnt know how to respond to getting his balls busted. Who cant see that guy running to the teacher as a kid? DUDE.........do I hit the nail on the head or what??

He was over on the now defunct MSNBC board pulling all the old tired sh!t stuff he pulls here............just the height of gayness.

I can't argue against your points. He is an odd one.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wry, you, as always, are one clueless ****. If it were truly the will of the people, it'd be done already. The fact that the Dems are still shitting themselves over how to nationalize 1/6 of the U.S. economy is proof it IS NOT the will of the people.

I say, do it... it will be undone in the next election cycle and the Dems will become irrelevant into the distant future.

DO IT!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wry, you, as always, are one clueless ****. If it were truly the will of the people, it'd be done already. The fact that the Dems are still shitting themselves over how to nationalize 1/6 of the U.S. economy is proof it IS NOT the will of the people.

I say, do it... it will be undone in the next election cycle and the Dems will become irrelevant into the distant future.

DO IT!!!!

I agree. Pass the bill, and let the people know what they think of our folks in DC. I suspect the Dems will slapped out office, but, no, they will not be "irrelevant into the far future." They will trim their sails to want the people are willing to accept.

 

[saveliberty]

I'll ask again, oh king of debate. lol. DrSmith, please enlighten the room with the schedule of premiums we can expect form this legislation that will make health care coverage affordable and available to all. Until you can answer that one, any comment made by you is drool.

I thinking man could take information like, we are adding people who are at high risk of using their coverage and incurring high bills from medical institutions and conclude that premiums have to go up to cover that. Offering less to providers for services rendered to the elderly will mean some or many doctors will opt out of providing that service. You could also arrive at the result that with Democrats fracturing over abortion, cadillac plan definitions and inclusion or just plain seeing the bill for the piece of crap it is, will mean no majority in the House.

Feel free to drag your knuckles across the floor and out the door. Try not to breathe on anyone on the way out. We are trying to keep health care costs down here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll ask again, oh king of debate. lol. DrSmith, please enlighten the room with the schedule of premiums we can expect form this legislation that will make health care coverage affordable and available to all. Until you can answer that one, any comment made by you is drool.

I thinking man could take information like, we are adding people who are at high risk of using their coverage and incurring high bills from medical institutions and conclude that premiums have to go up to cover that. Offering less to providers for services rendered to the elderly will mean some or many doctors will opt out of providing that service. You could also arrive at the result that with Democrats fracturing over abortion, cadillac plan definitions and inclusion or just plain seeing the bill for the piece of crap it is, will mean no majority in the House.

Feel free to drag your knuckles across the floor and out the door. Try not to breathe on anyone on the way out. We are trying to keep health care costs down here.

That may all be true, but now all that is irrelevant. The Dems have the ball, and they really do not care now what their opponents think, say, or do. Get ready for them to ram the bill down their opponents' collective throat. The fall elections will be the litmus test, nothing else.

 

[Liability]

I'll ask again, oh king of debate. lol. DrSmith, please enlighten the room with the schedule of premiums we can expect form this legislation that will make health care coverage affordable and available to all. Until you can answer that one, any comment made by you is drool.

I thinking man could take information like, we are adding people who are at high risk of using their coverage and incurring high bills from medical institutions and conclude that premiums have to go up to cover that. Offering less to providers for services rendered to the elderly will mean some or many doctors will opt out of providing that service. You could also arrive at the result that with Democrats fracturing over abortion, cadillac plan definitions and inclusion or just plain seeing the bill for the piece of crap it is, will mean no majority in the House.

Feel free to drag your knuckles across the floor and out the door. Try not to breathe on anyone on the way out. We are trying to keep health care costs down here.

That may all be true, but now all that is irrelevant. The Dems have the ball, and they really do not care now what their opponents think, say, or do. Get ready for them to ram the bill down their opponents' collective throat. The fall elections will be the litmus test, nothing else.

You Dims DO have the ball, but I think you are wrong about the strength of the commitment of the Party rank and file politicos. Many of your boys in the Dim Parody -- in Congress -- are deadly afraid of voting "aye" to this since they reasonably believe it amounts to electoral suicide.

As the old saying goes, you Dims may be dumb, but you aren't all stupid.

You poor bastards may not be able to cobble together a majority in the House.

And I enjoy watching you Dims self-destruct.

 

[saveliberty]

The opponents to the Democratic health care plan are Americans. THe fact you view us as irrelevant is really, what is the word? Irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are defining "Americans" by your silly political definitions? I would vote against any candidate of any party for pulling that demagoguery. You I will simply ignore. And you will admit in time that I was right about what happens.

 

[Murf76]

I "say" I'm a lawyer. Yep. I "say" I'm a lawyer. Decide if you want to call me out on it or not. Let's go ahead and get past that. If you like you can pm me and I'll give you my work number. Or I can just post you to our firm's website.

I really don't care. People on the internet can say whatever they want. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. For the purpose of political discussion, it's not important. I just thought it odd that you're unwilling to exercise simple logic.

Earmarks, let's say for argument's sake that what you say about McCain is true, it's certainly not true for the entire Republican party. Furthermore you keep dancing around and avoiding the meat of my posts. Do you think Obama, if given a choice, would rather have done it without earmarks or not? Answer that. Don't change the subject. Just answer it. It's not that hard.

Unless you were living under a rock during the 2008 presidential campaign, you know that McCain has never taken an earmark. It's common knowledge. Barack, on the other hand, took to them like a pig to mud as soon as he walked through the Senate door.

As far as the "meat of your posts" is concerned... sorry, it looks more like tofu to me... but I wasn't evading it, it just didn't grab my attention.
To answer your all-important-question... I don't think he cares. All he cares about is getting a bill through. He doesn't care what's in it. He thinks any 'win' will do. He views it as just "the foundation" anyway:
Obama To Progressives: This Is Just The Foundation

Certainly, Reid stuffing carve-outs and bribes into the Senate bill made his job more difficult. But he needed the votes. He's not going to let a little horse-trading get in his way, no matter how unpalatable it might be to tax-paying citizens. There's time to spin it later if need be, right?

Let's talk about your so-called arrogance for a second. Are you REALLY going to hang your hat on the way he used their names?
If you want to take his folksy, informal style...a style that goes along with the purpose of trying to lay down defenses and get something accomplished...and turn it into arrogance, you really need more to go on there. Furthermore, if they wanted to call him Barack, did he say they couldnt? I certainly didnt hear him say that. The first time BO used someone's first name...i'd think that informally means that they can use his first name. That was their choice.

That wasn't "folksy and informal". It was insulting. Is that the kind of respect you show in your professional life? Do you just go around all "folksy and informal" with people you're in a state of conflict with? Say, you're arguing a case in court... do you refer to the opposing council as "Tom" or "Lamar"? Would you punctuate damn near every sentence with it?

He knows very well they can't refer to him by his first name, certainly not in public. That's tradition from as far back as George Washington.

The 1787 Constitution of the United States did not specify the manner of address for the chief executive. When George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States in 1789, he initially used the style, "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties," a title elaborated by the Joint Congressional Committee on titles over the course of a month. Critics charged that it smacked of monarchy. Washington consented to the demands James Madison and the United States House of Representatives that the title be altered to "Mr. President." The first Vice President of the United States and the second President, John Adams, felt the title showed too little deference and lacked prestige, but he was unsuccessful in replacing it.
Mr. President (title) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bottom line, it's a small thing, but in this Obama acted like a dog marking its territory.

This last half of your post is just a weird rant. We've been back and forth again and again, and your entire response could be easily reduced to a resounding "Nuh-uh!"

I'm reading your post and thinking the exact same thing. You post "they used Mr. president" and "he cut one guy off" and then you categorize the entire event. That's it??? That's all you got?

He cut off alot more than one guy. Maybe you'd better watch a third time.
Overall, his manners were rude. And as I've pointed out MANY times, he monopolized the time, refused to engage Republican points, and would not budge an inch from his faulty "starting point". How successful do you think YOU would be if you conducted your professional negotiations this way? If he was serious about a bipartisan solution, how was his behavior logical?

I continually ask you to find some middle ground... and still you can't at least admit there's some gamesmanship involved by some conservatives. That's a no-brainer if you're really interested in being thought to be objective and well-reasoned.

As I said earlier... it's a BAD BILL. "Gamesmanship" would only apply to a good bill that was being rejected for no particular reason. There's no middle ground to be had if the starting-point is the Senate bill. That works the same for your question as it did at the healthcare summit.

Constitutional concerns...hmmm...well we can have the same old debates about the General Welfare clause and the Commerce Clause on whether a bill like this is constitutional if you want. You'll never agree...just like no one on this board ever submits to anyone about anything.

No, I most certainly would not. Both arguments are a ludicrous twisting of the founders' intent. A mandate that individual citizens purchase an insurance product is unprecedented. Mandates on employers based on no enumerated power, seizure of our personal medical records, dictating to private businesses what they'll sell, who they'll sell it to, and what it will cost... it's ridiculous.

Frankly, I don't understand why any citizen would support these depredations on our liberty. But then again... I'm not a lawyer.

But you're a partisan hack who can't even admit that starting over could be, by some, a delay/kill tactic. I wouldn't expect less.

Bullshit. If Obama had made an honest effort, they could have taken 8 or 10 agreeable items, written up a bill, and had it through Congress in a matter of weeks.

Oh... and who the hell are you, btw, to be calling anybody else a "partisan hack"? You might feature yourself a "moderate"... but you're defending a statist bill.

 

[Rinata]

Maddow really knows how to draw in the 792 k00ks who watch that show every night........

She knows damn well this bill hasnt a snowballs chance in hell........but she certainly doesnt want to take a show that according to cable news industry standards is "off the air" in the ratings dept......by talking about the fact that the House has zero chance of passing the Senate bill.

Look how you are proving her right. By lying like a rug. You want people to think that this bill has no chance. And by saying it, people will think it's true. But that is the right wing nuts that believe it. That doesn't work with everyone.

And you think that the House has zero chance of passing it?? You know that's not true. You're all wet!!!

 

[Oddball]

The HoR has zero chance of signing off on the Senate bill and sending it to reconciliation, because there would then be nothing to reconcile.

The next step would be for Boyking to sign or veto it....Those are the only two options.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry, you, as always, are one clueless ****. If it were truly the will of the people, it'd be done already. The fact that the Dems are still shitting themselves over how to nationalize 1/6 of the U.S. economy is proof it IS NOT the will of the people.

I say, do it... it will be undone in the next election cycle and the Dems will become irrelevant into the distant future.

DO IT!!!!

"one clueless ****"; my, you have such a way with words. It's way bad though; anyone with a clue understands what "to nationalize" actually means. I'd suggest your choice of words was simply hyperbole, but, having read your other 'work' it's obvious you simply don't understand the talking points you post.

 

[saveliberty]

Maddow really knows how to draw in the 792 k00ks who watch that show every night........

She knows damn well this bill hasnt a snowballs chance in hell........but she certainly doesnt want to take a show that according to cable news industry standards is "off the air" in the ratings dept......by talking about the fact that the House has zero chance of passing the Senate bill.

Look how you are proving her right. By lying like a rug. You want people to think that this bill has no chance. And by saying it, people will think it's true. But that is the right wing nuts that believe it. That doesn't work with everyone.

And you think that the House has zero chance of passing it?? You know that's not true. You're all wet!!!

Do the math Rinata. The House version passed by three votes the first time. Now they have to accept the Senate version which many don't like. Also, a dozen won't vote for it with the abortion language. Pelosi is way short on this one.

 

[Liability]

Maddow really knows how to draw in the 792 k00ks who watch that show every night........

She knows damn well this bill hasnt a snowballs chance in hell........but she certainly doesnt want to take a show that according to cable news industry standards is "off the air" in the ratings dept......by talking about the fact that the House has zero chance of passing the Senate bill.

Look how you are proving her right. By lying like a rug. You want people to think that this bill has no chance. And by saying it, people will think it's true. But that is the right wing nuts that believe it. That doesn't work with everyone.

And you think that the House has zero chance of passing it?? You know that's not true. You're all wet!!!

Do the math Rinata. The House version passed by three votes the first time. Now they have to accept the Senate version which many don't like. Also, a dozen won't vote for it with the abortion language. Pelosi is way short on this one.

Plus, President Obama has addressed the thorny issue of the bribery that has been used to get Congress-critters and Senators to support the competing versions of the legislation. Now, supposedly, the Administration is behind the effort to winnow OUT of the legislation any other such legal bribery. But if they can't BUY the votes of the members who have serious reservations, how the hell are they gonna compel the wayward Democratics to vote FOR it?

Unless, of course, President Obama's stated new position opposing such bribery is actually a green light to go ahead and offer such bribes as needed . . . .

 

[Vanquish]

I "say" I'm a lawyer. Yep. I "say" I'm a lawyer. Decide if you want to call me out on it or not. Let's go ahead and get past that. If you like you can pm me and I'll give you my work number. Or I can just post you to our firm's website.

I really don't care. People on the internet can say whatever they want. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not. For the purpose of political discussion, it's not important. I just thought it odd that you're unwilling to exercise simple logic.

No no no. You can't make a snide remark calling into question my claim...then run go hide when I call your bluff. You dont get to do that. Either come out and claim I'm not or quit that shit right now. Suddenly it's not relevant?

As for the inability to use simple logic, you must be looking in the mirror. I don't see you proving that my A + B = C is wrong. Care to give an example? Of course not.

Earmarks, let's say for argument's sake that what you say about McCain is true, it's certainly not true for the entire Republican party. Furthermore you keep dancing around and avoiding the meat of my posts. Do you think Obama, if given a choice, would rather have done it without earmarks or not? Answer that. Don't change the subject. Just answer it. It's not that hard.

Unless you were living under a rock during the 2008 presidential campaign, you know that McCain has never taken an earmark. It's common knowledge. Barack, on the other hand, took to them like a pig to mud as soon as he walked through the Senate door.

As far as the "meat of your posts" is concerned... sorry, it looks more like tofu to me... but I wasn't evading it, it just didn't grab my attention.

So you pick and choose which parts to respond to. Fair enough. But drop the silly evasion bullshit you attack me with when I do it.

To answer your all-important-question... I don't think he cares. All he cares about is getting a bill through. He doesn't care what's in it. He thinks any 'win' will do. He views it as just "the foundation" anyway:
Obama To Progressives: This Is Just The Foundation

Certainly, Reid stuffing carve-outs and bribes into the Senate bill made his job more difficult. But he needed the votes. He's not going to let a little horse-trading get in his way, no matter how unpalatable it might be to tax-paying citizens. There's time to spin it later if need be, right?

Well that's your opinion and you're allowed to have one. But my opinion differs. If he could get it passed without the normal politics in the background...he'd do it...if only because there's positive reputation for doing it. If he could get around doing it, he'd get so many more people clapping for him...but you're naive to think that something like this can just pass without wrangling to get it done. I admit that it'd be preferrable. Hell I'll even admit he campaigned on being able to do it and has failed in that regard. But it's not going to happen.

That wasn't "folksy and informal". It was insulting. Is that the kind of respect you show in your professional life? Do you just go around all "folksy and informal" with people you're in a state of conflict with? Say, you're arguing a case in court... do you refer to the opposing council as "Tom" or "Lamar"? Would you punctuate damn near every sentence with it?

He knows very well they can't refer to him by his first name, certainly not in public. That's tradition from as far back as George Washington.

Well you've got your mind made up. You aren't willing to possibly see things another way. I love the comment "in a state of conflict with"...aren't they supposed to be working together? Aren't they supposed to be civil to each other at least and put the people first? Of course it was folksy and informal.

As for your jibe, "do you do that in court" you're making an invalid comparison. What you saw was a mediation. It was two sides trying NOT to use an adversarial method...it was two sides instead trying to problem-solve together...like in a mediation. And yes, if I know the attorney I'm in the mediation with...I'll definitely use their name. There's nothing unprofessional about that at all. Perhaps that's why the event didnt work...while you were being adversarial, BO was trying to problem-solve


Bottom line, it's a small thing, but in this Obama acted like a dog marking its territory.




He cut off alot more than one guy. Maybe you'd better watch a third time.
Overall, his manners were rude. And as I've pointed out MANY times, he monopolized the time, refused to engage Republican points, and would not budge an inch from his faulty "starting point". How successful do you think YOU would be if you conducted your professional negotiations this way? If he was serious about a bipartisan solution, how was his behavior logical?

Translation: We knew what was going to happen before we walked into the room and acted like it was ok...but when we got there, we conservatives dug in our heels, and wanted to start over.

As I said earlier... it's a BAD BILL. "Gamesmanship" would only apply to a good bill that was being rejected for no particular reason. There's no middle ground to be had if the starting-point is the Senate bill. That works the same for your question as it did at the healthcare summit.

Constitutional concerns...hmmm...well we can have the same old debates about the General Welfare clause and the Commerce Clause on whether a bill like this is constitutional if you want. You'll never agree...just like no one on this board ever submits to anyone about anything.

No, I most certainly would not. Both arguments are a ludicrous twisting of the founders' intent. A mandate that individual citizens purchase an insurance product is unprecedented. Mandates on employers based on no enumerated power, seizure of our personal medical records, dictating to private businesses what they'll sell, who they'll sell it to, and what it will cost... it's ridiculous.

Frankly, I don't understand why any citizen would support these depredations on our liberty. But then again... I'm not a lawyer.

Perhaps you should ask your conservative congresspeople and senators. They've used the same rationale for Medicare and agencies like the FDA and EPA. I could school you on the constitutionality of executive branch agencies, but you'd just call me arrogant.

But you're a partisan hack who can't even admit that starting over could be, by some, a delay/kill tactic. I wouldn't expect less.

Bullshit. If Obama had made an honest effort, they could have taken 8 or 10 agreeable items, written up a bill, and had it through Congress in a matter of weeks.

Oh... and who the hell are you, btw, to be calling anybody else a "partisan hack"? You might feature yourself a "moderate"... but you're defending a statist bill.

I'm the guy highlighting the fact that you can't concede even one point to the other side. NEITHER side has a 100% lock on all the good ideas, but you're such a hack you won't admit that. Which makes everything you type worthless drivel. If you can't be objective, you're a hack.

 

[saveliberty]

Or he could be correct and your wrong. People that have the answer don't have to concede anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look how you are proving her right. By lying like a rug. You want people to think that this bill has no chance. And by saying it, people will think it's true. But that is the right wing nuts that believe it. That doesn't work with everyone.

And you think that the House has zero chance of passing it?? You know that's not true. You're all wet!!!

Do the math Rinata. The House version passed by three votes the first time. Now they have to accept the Senate version which many don't like. Also, a dozen won't vote for it with the abortion language. Pelosi is way short on this one.

Plus, President Obama has addressed the thorny issue of the bribery that has been used to get Congress-critters and Senators to support the competing versions of the legislation. Now, supposedly, the Administration is behind the effort to winnow OUT of the legislation any other such legal bribery. But if they can't BUY the votes of the members who have serious reservations, how the hell are they gonna compel the wayward Democratics to vote FOR it?

Unless, of course, President Obama's stated new position opposing such bribery is actually a green light to go ahead and offer such bribes as needed . . . .

Obama is strongly foragainst bribery!!

 

[Meister]

Look how you are proving her right. By lying like a rug. You want people to think that this bill has no chance. And by saying it, people will think it's true. But that is the right wing nuts that believe it. That doesn't work with everyone.

And you think that the House has zero chance of passing it?? You know that's not true. You're all wet!!!

Do the math Rinata. The House version passed by three votes the first time. Now they have to accept the Senate version which many don't like. Also, a dozen won't vote for it with the abortion language. Pelosi is way short on this one.

Plus, President Obama has addressed the thorny issue of the bribery that has been used to get Congress-critters and Senators to support the competing versions of the legislation. Now, supposedly, the Administration is behind the effort to winnow OUT of the legislation any other such legal bribery. But if they can't BUY the votes of the members who have serious reservations, how the hell are they gonna compel the wayward Democratics to vote FOR it?

Unless, of course, President Obama's stated new position opposing such bribery is actually a green light to go ahead and offer such bribes as needed . . . .

Not to mention that Nan' and Barry want to pass the reconcilliation bill before the Senate bill is even voted on.
In essence, they are reconciliating a non existing bill.