billvon 3,072
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteone word.
filibuster. All it takes to shut down legislation is to threaten it.
Whenever I hear the argument you just proposed, I have to wonder if the person is ignorant to how the process works, or being willfully disingenuous to back up their position.
The Dems were already hammering the Reps over opposition to the bill and saying that they'd pass it without them. But the Senate was somehow so scared of a possible filibuster that they could use for even MORE ammunition against the Reps?
Again - please. Talk about an ingenuous or ignorant argument.QuoteThe dems did not have major majorities in the house or the senate. They did not have enough votes to overrule a filibuster. If they had we wouldn't be having this discussion.
House rules don't allow filibusters - so explain again how the threat of filibuster prevented the House from putting the public option in. On the Senate side, they'd have to convince ONE Republican to go along with them, assuming they get the Indies (which they generally do).
Ain't passing the 'sniff test', sorry.
And that one republican was Olympia Snowe, who wouldn't vote for the bill if there was a public option.
facts are irrelevant though, right?
Quote
House rules don't allow filibusters - so explain again how the threat of filibuster prevented the House from putting the public option in. On the Senate side, they'd have to convince ONE Republican to go along with them, assuming they get the Indies (which they generally do).
Ain't passing the 'sniff test', sorry.
Not to you, but you have a massive clothespin covering your nose right now. They weren't getting that one vote with the public option, nor were they getting weasel Lieberman's vote. He may have been more a pain in the ass than Snowe. And several other Democrats would have bailed on it too, fearing a Socialist tag on their next election.
I don't object to a bill this significant requiring a super majority. But don't pretend that the Democrats had free rein to pass whatever they wanted.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt is about gov power, money and control
I believe that corporate power over the consumer should be added to your statement.
You believe wrong
Are there some IMO? Yes
But those few are the least of our worries
There are far more than just a few that abuse the consumer. Small example is the electric company that I have to use. 12% rate increase along with two new items; service availability fee for $20.00 and a Power Cost Adjustment. My bill would had been$67.31 for last month, but the new fees that they added brings my bill to $92.27! When I called to ask about the new fees, they say it is so they can provide better service. That is nothing more than bullshit. It is nothing more than gouging the consumer because they have what you need. If you don't want to live in the dark, you'll pay their outrages fees. It amounts to corporate power over the consumer.
A regulated utility or an REC or municiple?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
turtlespeed 226
QuoteQuote
Ain't passing the 'sniff test', sorry.
And that one republican was Olympia Snowe, who wouldn't vote for the bill if there was a public option.
facts are irrelevant though, right?
She is the only republican in the Senate?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
rushmc 23
Quoteone word.
filibuster. All it takes to shut down legislation is to threaten it.
Whenever I hear the argument you just proposed, I have to wonder if the person is ignorant to how the process works, or being willfully disingenuous to back up their position.
The dems did not have major majorities in the house or the senate. They did not have enough votes to overrule a filibuster. If they had we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes
They did
they lost it later after the special elections
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
turtlespeed 226
QuoteQuote
House rules don't allow filibusters - so explain again how the threat of filibuster prevented the House from putting the public option in. On the Senate side, they'd have to convince ONE Republican to go along with them, assuming they get the Indies (which they generally do).
Ain't passing the 'sniff test', sorry.
Not to you, but you have a massive clothespin covering your nose right now. They weren't getting that one vote with the public option, nor were they getting weasel Lieberman's vote. He may have been more a pain in the ass than Snowe. And several other Democrats would have bailed on it too, fearing a Socialist tag on their next election.
I don't object to a bill this significant requiring a super majority. But don't pretend that the Democrats had free rein to pass whatever they wanted.
It is amazing what happens when you fear the consequences of going against what the public that elected you actually wants.
Or are you one of those that thinks that you know what is better for people than what they want?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
QuoteQuoteone word.
filibuster. All it takes to shut down legislation is to threaten it.
Whenever I hear the argument you just proposed, I have to wonder if the person is ignorant to how the process works, or being willfully disingenuous to back up their position.
The dems did not have major majorities in the house or the senate. They did not have enough votes to overrule a filibuster. If they had we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes
They did
they lost it later after the special elections
you're flat out wrong.
It requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. Democrats held 57 seats. Independents held 2.
Turtle, you're obviously being facetious, nothing new there, I guess, but Olympia Snowe was the only republican senator that was willing to entertain voting for the health care reform bill. But only if it was written the way she felt okay with. Simple fact is that the bill could not have been passed without her support and liebermans support. If Snowe and Lieberman had been receptive to a public option then it would have happened. The few dems that came out against it would have supported it if there was a chance.
mnealtx 0
QuoteNot to you, but you have a massive clothespin covering your nose right now.
Your opinion, and worth what you paid for it.
QuoteThey weren't getting that one vote with the public option, nor were they getting weasel Lieberman's vote. He may have been more a pain in the ass than Snowe. And several other Democrats would have bailed on it too, fearing a Socialist tag on their next election.
So, they leave the public option in. *IF* the Reps filibuster, then they throw a couple New Louisiana Purchases or Cornhusker Kickbacks on the Rep side - cloture achieved.
QuoteI don't object to a bill this significant requiring a super majority. But don't pretend that the Democrats had free rein to pass whatever they wanted.
Again - please. Passing the bill doesn't require a supermajority. The Dems had a sufficient majority in the House to pass it without a single Rep vote (in fact, Cao's vote wasn't even needed), and they *did* pass it in the Senate without a single Rep vote.
This whole fiasco was a grandstand act to the get the law into place and starting to take effect before the mid-terms. The Dems could have said 'fuck you, go ahead and filibuster it' and hammered the Reps in the press until pressure from the voters (*IF* it was a popular as the Dems claim) forced a cloture vote.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteQuote
House rules don't allow filibusters - so explain again how the threat of filibuster prevented the House from putting the public option in. On the Senate side, they'd have to convince ONE Republican to go along with them, assuming they get the Indies (which they generally do).
Ain't passing the 'sniff test', sorry.
Not to you, but you have a massive clothespin covering your nose right now. They weren't getting that one vote with the public option, nor were they getting weasel Lieberman's vote. He may have been more a pain in the ass than Snowe. And several other Democrats would have bailed on it too, fearing a Socialist tag on their next election.
I don't object to a bill this significant requiring a super majority. But don't pretend that the Democrats had free rein to pass whatever they wanted.
It is amazing what happens when you fear the consequences of going against what the public that elected you actually wants.
Or are you one of those that thinks that you know what is better for people than what they want?
When the question wasn't phrased as a "government take over of health care", but as it truly was a "public option for government run health insurance", the public widely supported it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
Sorry, but it was the right wingers led by fake news that concocted the notion that the public was opposed to the choice of a public insurance option. It was a scam perpetrated by the supporters of the insurance companies and you're one of the sorry saps that fell for it.
Well, now we're getting in to debate about how shitty of a leader pelosi was. Waste of skin imo.
Regardless, the republican leadership made it adamantly clear that they would filibuster any plan with a public option. If the democrats had 60 votes they would have passed it with one.
Trying to argue that the republicans are not responsible for the lack of a public option is ludicrous.
Regardless, the republican leadership made it adamantly clear that they would filibuster any plan with a public option. If the democrats had 60 votes they would have passed it with one.
Trying to argue that the republicans are not responsible for the lack of a public option is ludicrous.
turtlespeed 226
QuoteQuoteQuoteone word.
filibuster. All it takes to shut down legislation is to threaten it.
Whenever I hear the argument you just proposed, I have to wonder if the person is ignorant to how the process works, or being willfully disingenuous to back up their position.
The dems did not have major majorities in the house or the senate. They did not have enough votes to overrule a filibuster. If they had we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yes
They did
they lost it later after the special elections
you're flat out wrong.
It requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. Democrats held 57 seats. Independents held 2.
Turtle, you're obviously being facetious, nothing new there, I guess, but Olympia Snowe was the only republican senator that was willing to entertain voting for the health care reform bill. But only if it was written the way she felt okay with. Simple fact is that the bill could not have been passed without her support and liebermans support. If Snowe and Lieberman had been receptive to a public option then it would have happened. The few dems that came out against it would have supported it if there was a chance.
I'm only half facetious - if the the bill was worth the paper it was printed on, it would have passed.
If the promises were kept as to time and availability to the bills language, it MIGHT have passed.
I am not being facetious when I remind you that it is an amazing thing that happens when the public responds to being bullied by the people that they elected to represent them.
I can pretty much guarantee that the people in the democratic seats now will listen a LOT harder to the constituents instead of Her Highness Pelosi and Commander Reid.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
mnealtx 0
QuoteWell, now we're getting in to debate about how shitty of a leader pelosi was. Waste of skin imo.
Regardless, the republican leadership made it adamantly clear that they would filibuster any plan with a public option. If the democrats had 60 votes they would have passed it with one.
Trying to argue that the republicans are not responsible for the lack of a public option is ludicrous.
Given the amount of public pressure the Dems were putting on the Reps, trying to argue that the Dems couldn't have forced cloture is even more ludicrous.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,072
>I can pretty much guarantee that the people in the democratic seats now
>will listen a LOT harder to the constituents instead of Her Highness Pelosi
>and Commander Reid.
Hmm. Do you think that republicans will become wafflers as well, and abandon their worship of Palin, Limbaugh et al?
>will listen a LOT harder to the constituents instead of Her Highness Pelosi
>and Commander Reid.
Hmm. Do you think that republicans will become wafflers as well, and abandon their worship of Palin, Limbaugh et al?
mnealtx 0
Quote>I can pretty much guarantee that the people in the democratic seats now
>will listen a LOT harder to the constituents instead of Her Highness Pelosi
>and Commander Reid.
Hmm. Do you think that republicans will become wafflers as well, and abandon their worship of Palin, Limbaugh et al?
Have the Dems abandoned their worship of DKos, Olbermann, Schultz et al?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,072
>Have the Dems abandoned their worship of DKos, Olbermann, Schultz et al?
I thought they were all supposed to be worshiping Obama. Gotta keep your smears straight.
I thought they were all supposed to be worshiping Obama. Gotta keep your smears straight.
turtlespeed 226
Quote>Have the Dems abandoned their worship of DKos, Olbermann, Schultz et al?
I thought they were all supposed to be worshiping Obama. Gotta keep your smears straight.
Obama is the Messiah, te others are just demigods.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
mnealtx 0
Quote>Have the Dems abandoned their worship of DKos, Olbermann, Schultz et al?
I thought they were all supposed to be worshiping Obama. Gotta keep your smears straight.
In that case, lemme know when one of the Rep congresscritters says "because Sarah Palin said so".
You know - something to make YOUR statement actually be truth and not a smear.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
>to those that have never paid anyway!
Our favorite revisionist historian creates another GOP-fact!
Waiting for the "Obama started the Iraq war" revision next.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites