On Mar 25, 8:16*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in ...





RogerN wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
....
On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

....
On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN" wrote:

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894

Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

Did you believe
Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
executive order, that he can remove any time?

I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
there is no question. *They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?

Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.

So Obama would have been held to his bi-partisan promise? *How terrible!





Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
the Stupak abortion ban? *Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
had duped you.

You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House
passed
the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi
has
indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
law.

HTH
But I doubt it.

--
John R. Carroll

But I keep getting people like you or Ed to explain it and take me in a full
circle back to what I said in the first place. *Has reconciliation ever been
used for this significant of a power grab by the Government? *Is it
constitutional for Congress to pass a bill mandating citizens to buy
something from private companies? *Why couldn't we wait for a Health Care
that the majority wanted? *Why the rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?
You explained it but you didn't explain it, you explained that if the
Democratic Stupak amendment was added, it would have to be voted on again,
so? *Is their something wrong with passing a bill that the majority of
Americans want, both Democrats and Republicans? *But instead Obama cancels
trips to force his crappy bill upon us. *Why not vote on a basic health care
plan that the majority agree on and take the more difficult issues
separately? *Yeah, I know, but isn't what's good for our country more
important than what any political party wants? *Like I heard, the only thing
bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition to it.

With all the bad laws in this land, I personally feel that something this
big is worth doing right, even if it takes more time to do it right. *Is
this about healthcare or about Obama? *Or is it about political parties? *I
hope they prove me wrong for the sake of our country, I guess all I can do
is wait and see.

RogerN

Roger, Roger, Roger...It's always gonna be something with you, isn't
it. A few hours ago, it was about Obama the Nazi Baby Killer, and now
it's about Senate rules? Once again, very slowly this time:

Had the Stupak (or any other amendment been added in the house
reconcilliation process, the bill would have been returned to the full
senate for a vote which would have then required a 60 vote
"supermajority" to pass, as the Republicans promised to fillibuster.
Avoiding amendments allowed the bill to pass witha simple majority in
the Senate.

There's nothing unconstitutional about it. Nothing illegal. The GOP
may not like it, but they practically invented it. That's how the Bush
tax cuts for the richest Americans were passed, over the objections of
the Democrats.

As for what the "majority" wants, well, obviously, the majority of
Congressmen and Senators want it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this
discussion. Those are the duly elected representatives of the people,
doing their jobs. If, on the other hand, you prefer public opinion
polls rather than legislative votes (as prescribed in the
Constitution), then take a look at this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...avorable_N.htm
[
WASHINGTON — More Americans now favor than oppose the health care
overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/
Gallup Poll finds — a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote
that showed a plurality against the legislation.
By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad
one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in
positive terms — as "enthusiastic" or "pleased" — while about four in
10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the legislation "a good first
step" that needs to be followed by more action. And 4% say the bill
itself makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health
care system.
]