RogerN wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
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!

A filibuster is an entirely partisan practice Roger.



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?

Many times.
Iraq has cost Americans a trillion dollars Roger and that boondogle is just
money ****ed away.
The Bush tax cuts, another trillion and bthe were either done through
reconcilliation or supplemental appropriations.

Is it constitutional for Congress to pass a bill
mandating citizens to buy something from private companies?

It is.

Why
couldn't we wait for a Health Care that the majority wanted?

?
Have you forgotten the Democrats ran health-care reform as one of their
signature issues in 2008 and kicked ass at the polls?
You might also want to have a look at today's polling data Roger.

Why the
rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?

15 months of legistlative wrangling after 100 years of discussion isn't my
idea of rushing.

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?

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.

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.

Obama didn't get a vote on this Roger.
Wrong branch.
He hasn't been a member of the Senate for over a year now.

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?

It is, and the Democrats did just exactly that.
Congress will continue to work over health care now that we have a law in
place until the US has a single payer system.
That is the difficult part and it remains to be done. Once it is, the United
States will finally have rejoined the rest of the civilized world.

Like
I heard, the only thing bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition
to it.

Two hundred of the Republican amendments offered in committee are in the
bill that passed Roger.
What Republicans did early on was make a political calculation.
They realized that passage of a bill by a Congress with a majority of
Democrats and signed by a Democrat President would mean to Republicans what
the passage of Social Security meant years back. They didn't get back into
the White House again until Eisenhower.
In other words, they have been trying to protect their political hides, not
pass meaningful legislation.
Between now and November, this is going to become more and more obvious to
voters.
It's an off year election and the economy is down but let me clue you in.
Should the economy be trending upward in a more positive fashion on the jobs
front by the next election, and it almost certainly will, Republicans might
have great difficulty at the polls. The Republican party is also in the
process of eating their own right now Roger.
Just look at Utah and the Republican caucus. They might actually throw out
their Republican INCUMBENT in a fit of pique.


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.

I watched John Boehner from the well of the House this evening and he's
apparently back on his meds.
Now that we actually have a law, Congress will work like hell to make sure
that shortcomings are addressed as they are revealed.
That was exactly what he said, but not really what he meant. His threatening
statements regarding defunding were idiocy and he knows it. The apocalypse
predicted didn't materialize and it won't. I'll be interested to see how
Republicans explain away that because the facts aren't on their side, never
were, and won't be going forward.

Is this about healthcare or about Obama?

Both.


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.

No, you can vote but thank God, only once.
You can also go out and see how many nut jobs like yourself you can collect
up and get them to the polls as well.

--
John R. Carroll