#Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans believe

[3026 Dead]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-healthcare


Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans believe

A poll reveals that public confidence in the ability of the court to
judge on the merits of the law in this and other cases is low

[Zeppnote: No shit! You think?]

Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 8 June 2012 13.08 EDT

The US supreme court in 2009. Public confidence in the court has been low
since it decided the 2000 presidential race. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/
Getty Images

Most Americans believe the supreme court's judges will decide the
constitutionality of the president's healthcare reforms based on their
personal and political views and not the law.

The findings, in a New York Times poll , show that public confidence in
the court has continued to decline amid the judicial battles over health
reforms and a controversial immigration law. Three-quarters of Americans
say supreme court decisions are influenced by the judges' political or
personal views.

The president has already laid the ground for a political fight if the
decision on health reforms goes against him by warning that it would be
wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and
extraordinary" step of striking down the legislation on the grounds that
the requirement for most Americans to buy private health insurance is
unconstitutional.

Fifty-five percent of those polled said that the supreme court justices
will decide the legality of the healthcare law "mainly based on personal
or political views". Just 32% believe the ruling will be based on its
legal merits. However, the same poll revealed that more than two-thirds
want the supreme court to overturn all or part of the healthcare law.

Both sides are gearing up for a major political battle over the decision,
which is expected before the end of the month. Some Democrats have called
on the president to make the conduct of the supreme court an election
issue if it strikes down the health reforms.

The poll suggests there may be some political traction there with 60% of
those questioned agreeing that "appointing Supreme Court justices for
life is a bad thing because it gives them too much power".

Confidence in the supreme court has fallen sharply since the 1980s. Its
reputation suffered a significant blow among some Americans after it
divided along political lines with the conservative majority delivering
the presidential election to George W Bush in 2000 even though he
received fewer votes than Al Gore.

More recently, its decision two years ago in the Citizens United case to
permit unrestrained spending on political advertisements by businesses
and unions also attracted accusations of ideological motives.

Republicans went on the counter-offensive this week. Senator Chuck
Grassley accused the administration of an unconstitutional attack on the
independence of the supreme court.

"I cannot remember when such a significant threat to judicial
independence was made by attempting to affect the outcome of an impending
case. It's an outrageous attack on the separation of power," he said.

Another Republican senator, Jon Kyl, accused the White House of "thinly
veiled threats" against the court. Senator Mike Lee said Democrats are
attempting to bully the justices. "Let's stop yelling at the referees and
let the supreme court do its job while we do ours," he said.

On another politically charged case before the supreme court – an Arizona
state law denounced as racist because it requires the police to probe the
immigration status of people they stop and makes a criminal offence of
being an illegal immigrant – a little more than half of Americans believe
the legislation is "about right". One-third said it goes too far.

The Obama administration has challenged the law on the grounds that it
usurps federal powers to set immigration policy.

The poll shows that 64% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants
should be permitted to remain in the country in order to become citizens
or as guest workers. Just 32% agree with calls for them to be deported.

--
Subscribe:
zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news...@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe:
zepps_essays...@yahoogroups.com
zepps_news-...@yahoogroups.com

Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!

[Not Sure]

On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-healt...

>
> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans believe

Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and
want it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.

> zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:
> zepps_essays-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> zepps_news-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

[3026 Dead]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:26:51 -0700, Not Sure wrote:

> On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-
healt...
>>
>> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans
>> believe
>
> Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and want
> it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.

30% don't like it because they think it's a commie plot. Another 30%
don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. 40% are OK with it.

And the Supreme Court is stuff with fascist joke justices.

[Vandar]

3026 Dead wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:26:51 -0700, Not Sure wrote:
>
>
>>On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-
>
> healt...
>
>>>Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans
>>>believe
>>
>>Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and want
>>it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.
>
>
> 30% don't like it because they think it's a commie plot. Another 30%
> don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. 40% are OK with it.

The poll does not indicate in any way that 40% are OK with it.


Does Obamacare go too far, not far enough, or is it about right?
Too Far: 37%
Not Far Enough: 27%
About Right: 25%

How should the SCOTUS rule?
Keep Everything: 24%
Overturn The Mandate: 27%
Overturn The Whole Thing: 41%

Right there is 68% who aren't "OK with it".

[Steve]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:34:10 +0000 (UTC), 3026 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:26:51 -0700, Not Sure wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-
>healt...
>>>
>>> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans
>>> believe
>>
>> Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and want
>> it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.
>
>30% don't like it because they think it's a commie plot. Another 30%
>don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. 40% are OK with it.

That's Jamieson bullshit. Heres the latest NYTimes/CBSnews poll.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/new-poll-the-supreme-court-and-the-health-care-law/

"According to the poll, 41 percent of Americans would like the high
court to overturn the entire law, while another 27 percent said only
the individual mandate should be struck down. A mere 24 percent said
the justices should uphold the entire law."

>And the Supreme Court is stuff with fascist joke justices.

Porky doesn't care much for the legal system.

[Fred E Brown]

"3026 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jqtsno$924$1...@dont-email.me...

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-healthcare
>
>
> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans believe
>
> A poll reveals that public confidence in the ability of the court to
> judge on the merits of the law in this and other cases is low
>
> [Zeppnote: No shit! You think?]

Since the court members have lifetime appointments and can only be removed
by impeachment by the Senate for high crimes and misdomenors, they hardly
worry about public opinion. What the heck, it works for Obama, he cares less
about public opinion, why should the court be concerned about it?

[Fred E Brown]

"Not Sure" <fred1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da753ba2-3222-411d...@x39g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-healt...
>
> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans believe

Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and
want it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.

The posting zombie probably thinks the Court is checking in here
to gage public opinion.
The White house is already working up a spin on how a lose on
ObamaCare is really a win for Obama.
Typical Liberals, can't understand that if you lose by one point, you lost
period.
There's no win, the other team gets the prize.

[Fred E Brown]

"3026 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message

news:jqu5m2$u9b$2...@dont-email.me...

> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:26:51 -0700, Not Sure wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-
> healt...
>>>
>>> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans
>>> believe
>>
>> Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and want
>> it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.
>
> 30% don't like it because they think it's a commie plot. Another 30%
> don't like it because it doesn't go far enough. 40% are OK with it.

In either event 70% are opposed to it, we'll pass that along to the Court.

[Phlip]

On Jun 9, 7:40 am, "Fred E Brown" <fredebr...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> In either event 70% are opposed to it, we'll pass that along to the Court.

70% do not want it repealed.

No, it's the Bushes & Reagan who quietly order the court to rule in
favor of their cronies.

Dems believe in the rule of law - the Court should vote based on the
Constitution and precedent.

[Gary DW]

In article <jqucmd$i5a$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
says...

Ja, and then if it gets overturned Pubs suddenly have to
figure out what to do with the three parts of it that
are already staggeringly popular...

1. Allowing kids to be on parents plan until 26.
2. Closing the seniors donut hole.
3. The big whopper... not allowing insurance companies
to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Pubs are so deep into the insurance companies asses..
WTF are they to do??

Without a mandate, there is no way to cover preexisting
conditions... especially with Pubs so against a single
payer or even a public option.

Watch once Vandar the dog finally catches the car...
"WTF do I do NOW?"

My guess is keep kicking the can down the road and blame
Dems because the health care system is a collosal mess.


Thats usally Vandars fallback position on everything.



--


-Gary


And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional
staffer, wrote an anguished diatribe last year about why
he was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three
decades. ?The Republican Party is becoming less and less
like a traditional political party in a representative
democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or
one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties
of 20th century Europe,? he wrote on the Truthout Web
site.

[Brad Nerlow]

On Jun 9, 10:08 pm, Gary DW <Dw2spike3...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> In article <jqucmd$i5...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

Gee Gary, I guess they'll have to come up with someting that passes
the constitutional smell test or tell John and Jane Q. Public to
change the constitution if those are so important.

It's really just a constitutional republic doing what comes naturally,
if ya think about it.

> Watch once Vandar the dog finally catches the car...
> "WTF do I do NOW?"
>
> My guess is keep kicking the can down the road and blame
> Dems because the health care system is a collosal mess.
>
> Thats usally Vandars fallback position on everything.
>
> --
>
> -Gary
>
> And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional
> staffer, wrote an anguished diatribe last year about why
> he was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three
> decades. ?The Republican Party is becoming less and less
> like a traditional political party in a representative
> democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or
> one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties
> of 20th century Europe,? he wrote on the Truthout Web

> site.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[wy]

And the crucial missing question in all of that is:

How much do you know about Obamacare?

a. I have read all 2,000 pages and understand it fully: 0%
b. I have read none of it: 100%
c. All I know about it is through the biased media: 100%
d. None of it works for me, unless it works for me: 100%

[wy]

The Constitutional smell test will be the death of you yet. In fact,
you're all already dying from that Constitutional stench, as abused by
the idiot half of the country.

>
> It's really just a constitutional republic doing what comes naturally,
> if ya think about it.

Yeah, killing itself. That Constitution needs a little updating, it's
well overdue for some amendments favoring sanity.

[Vandar]

As long as it's constitutional, they can do what they want.

And it's the Dems who are the insurance industry's lapdogs. That's the
primary reason they passed a potentially unconstitutional law requiring
every citizen to purchase their products.

[wy]

On Jun 10, 6:16 am, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gary DW wrote:

> > In article <jqucmd$i5...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

And if the Supreme Court should deem Obamacare constitutional, would
you then willingly bend over and do the constitutional thing and allow
yourself to be "forced" into purchasing their products? By the way,
there are no products to purchase - you'd only be getting an implicit
agreement between your premiums and Obamacare that you will receive
whatever treatment and services and medication you'll need when you
'll need them at reduced or no cost to you, just like you do with HMOs
and PPOs.

[Dänk 42Ø]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:01:29 +0000, 3026 Dead quacked:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-

healthcare
>
>
> Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans
> believe
>
> A poll reveals that public confidence in the ability of the court to
> judge on the merits of the law in this and other cases is low
>
> [Zeppnote: No shit! You think?]

But if they uphold the law, you will praise them for their fair and
unbiased decision, and demand that everyone respect and obey it.

You never even graduated from high school, nor did you ever take a single
class in American government, yet you presume to be more knowledgeable on
our Constitution than the career lawyers on the Supreme Court.

It is true that Obamacare is a political issue, with each ruling party
holding a contradictory view on whether it is constitutional. One side
is correct, but not necessarily yours. Just because the Court sides with
the position of one of the political parties does not mean its decision
was based on politics. Get that through your crack-addled brain already.

While I am not a conservative, the conservative (and libertarian)
arguments against Obamacare make the most sense to me. If the individual
mandate is upheld, there will be no restrictions on federal power. The
scariest thing about liberalism is how willing it is to trade freedom for
welfare state goodies like universal health care. Health care is an
important issue, but not so important that we should accept the creation
of an all-powerful Soviet government to give it to us.

[Vandar]

Depends. If the SCOTUS rules it valid, I'll crunch the numbers and do
whatever works best for my wallet.

> By the way, there are no products to purchase - you'd only be getting an implicit
> agreement between your premiums and Obamacare that you will receive
> whatever treatment and services and medication you'll need when you
> 'll need them at reduced or no cost to you, just like you do with HMOs
> and PPOs.

That's not true, but I'm not going start arguing your potato logic again.

[wy]

You can't argue it because you know it's true. Have I bought anything
from the Canadian health care system that I was "forced" to buy?
Nada. I don't even have a contract with the Canadian government, any
hospital or doctor for any services or products to be rendered to me.
All they gave me was a health card ID for me to use whenever I see
fit. That's it. And I didn't even have to pay out of pocket for the
card either. Whatever the government covers means I'm automatically
covered for it, no questions asked, and the card gives me full access
to it. Can't get any simpler or painless than that. Your paranoia is
greatly unfounded and largely self-instilled. They have drugs to
control that, you know.

[Vandar]

Being that you're a leech, I'm not suprised you have that view of it.

> Whatever the government covers means I'm automatically
> covered for it, no questions asked, and the card gives me full access
> to it. Can't get any simpler or painless than that. Your paranoia is
> greatly unfounded and largely self-instilled. They have drugs to
> control that, you know.

Let me know when you spend more than a day living in the US.

[wy]

What leech? Everybody pays into it.

>
> > Whatever the government covers means I'm automatically
> > covered for it, no questions asked, and the card gives me full access
> > to it.  Can't get any simpler or painless than that.  Your paranoia is
> > greatly unfounded and largely self-instilled.  They have drugs to
> > control that, you know.
>
> Let me know when you spend more than a day living in the US.

I spent two and a half months one summer driving through 34 states.
Saw a hell of a lot more of the US in that summer than you did all
your life, for sure.

[Gary DW]

In article <jr1s68$90i$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
says...

No, the only reason they did that was because not a
single Pub would help them with the public option.

So we got a mandate instead.

See how that works, Vandar?

Cooperate with others, or you get the shit end of the
stick. As a Tea-bagger, you wouldn't understand...
you've never heard of such a thing. Even though
Congress worked perfectly fine for 200 years before the
tea-baggers took over.

[Gary DW]

In article <096d4ef3-b340-4c41-93b7-8615926006a3
@f16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Brad Nerlow says...

Oh, you mean Pubs will pass the public option that the
rest of America wanted all along?

Fine with me!

What took you morons so long to become patriotic?

[Vandar]

Yeah. If the Democrats don't get capitulation from the other side,
they'll ignore the Constitution and do what they want anyway.

> Cooperate with others, or you get the shit end of the
> stick. As a Tea-bagger, you wouldn't understand...
> you've never heard of such a thing. Even though
> Congress worked perfectly fine for 200 years before the
> tea-baggers took over.

The Tea Party didn't take over anything.
Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. They could've
passed anything they wanted... and they did.
If the SCOTUS shoots it down, that looks extremely bad for them.

[wy]

On Jun 10, 4:29 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gary DW wrote:

> > In article <jr1s68$90...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> > says...
>
> >>Gary DW wrote:
>
> >>>In article <jqucmd$i5...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

That's what's called the Tea Party's Roll Over and Play Dead
Strategy. They and Repugnants never had any intentions on voting for
Obamacare or practically anything else he wanted to pass. That's been
in their play book from Inauguration Day on. So to say that Obamacare
was passed without a single vote may be technically correct, but in
political spirit, it was, and still is, all about "let's bring the
niggah down."

> If the SCOTUS shoots it down, that looks extremely bad for them.

Bang, bang, shoot it down.

[Vandar]

Just can't focus away from skin color, can you.

[Gary DW]

In article <jr303f$ol6$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

If you think the Mittens-Mandate is what Dems wanted,
you are a more crazy tea-bagger then I thought.

>
> > Cooperate with others, or you get the shit end of the
> > stick. As a Tea-bagger, you wouldn't understand...
> > you've never heard of such a thing. Even though
> > Congress worked perfectly fine for 200 years before the
> > tea-baggers took over.
>
> The Tea Party didn't take over anything.
> Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote.

Thats my point. If any Pub voted for a public option
they would face the tea-baggers in the primaries.

They took over Congress.

You are just too stupid to figure it out.

They could've
> passed anything they wanted...

You are a liar.



> and they did.



Not with Lieberman, Nelson, and Conrad insisting on a
mandate. Oh, and Ted Kennedy dying didn't help either.

Lucky tea-bagger you.

> If the SCOTUS shoots it down, that looks extremely bad for them.

[Vandar]

You give them too much credit.

> They took over Congress.

If they took over Congress, the PPACA never would've passed, with or
without a mandate.

> You are just too stupid to figure it out.
>
>
>
> They could've
>
>>passed anything they wanted...
>
>
>
> You are a liar.

What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
anything they wanted.

>>and they did.
>
>
>
>
> Not with Lieberman, Nelson, and Conrad insisting on a
> mandate.

Those are Democrats. If the rest of the Democrats bowed to the will of
those three, that's not the fault of Republicans.

> Oh, and Ted Kennedy dying didn't help either.

No big loss. His vote wasn't needed.

[Gary DW]

In article <jr3ocn$m38$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

Ha.. are there any moderate Republicans even left?

>
> > They took over Congress.
>
> If they took over Congress, the PPACA never would've passed, with or
> without a mandate.

They "took over" in that they completely changed the
landscape of modern day politics. Let me guess... you
STILL think that the record number of filibusters by
Pubs has been happening for centuries even though I keep
pointing it out everytime we have this discussion?

>
> > You are just too stupid to figure it out.
> >
> >
> >
> > They could've
> >
> >>passed anything they wanted...
> >
> >
> >
> > You are a liar.
>
> What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
> anything they wanted.

The American people wanted a public option or single
payer. So did the vast majority of Dems.

But with ZERO Pub cooperation (led by your tea-bagger
brethrens) we were left with a mandate. Its the best
they could manage.

Its your baby... you diaper it.


You are nothing more than a political terrorist that
blames people for falling victim to the terrorism.

>
> >>and they did.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not with Lieberman, Nelson, and Conrad insisting on a
> > mandate.
>
> Those are Democrats.

Do you think only in black and white? The rightie
binary mind again.

As if the letter in front of the name is the only thing
that matters.

People wanted a public option and Pubs faught it tooth
and nail.. and you blame Dems for it.

Fuck off asshole... as usual.

There should have been some patriotic Americans fighting
for anything BUT the mandate... but no. Not even ONE
Republican.

This is what we have because of people like YOU.

Its your baby.. you diaper it.

If the rest of the Democrats bowed to the will of
> those three, that's not the fault of Republicans.
>
> > Oh, and Ted Kennedy dying didn't help either.
>
> No big loss. His vote wasn't needed.

[Vandar]

Yes.

>>>They took over Congress.
>>
>>If they took over Congress, the PPACA never would've passed, with or
>>without a mandate.
>
>
>
> They "took over" in that they completely changed the
> landscape of modern day politics. Let me guess... you
> STILL think that the record number of filibusters by
> Pubs has been happening for centuries even though I keep
> pointing it out everytime we have this discussion?

The PPACA wasn't filibustered. They had 60 votes with every Republican
senator voting against it.

>>>You are just too stupid to figure it out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They could've
>>>
>>>
>>>>passed anything they wanted...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You are a liar.
>>
>>What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
>>anything they wanted.
>
>
>
>
> The American people wanted a public option or single
> payer. So did the vast majority of Dems.
>
> But with ZERO Pub cooperation (led by your tea-bagger
> brethrens) we were left with a mandate. Its the best
> they could manage.

There were no Tea Party candidates serving in Congress at that time.

> Its your baby... you diaper it.

I love how when every Republican in both chambers votes against a bill
and it still passes, you blame Republicans.

It's a Democrat law, passed by every Democrat and only Democrats, aigned
by Democrat POTUS.
Ownership belongs to the people who signed the title.

> You are nothing more than a political terrorist that
> blames people for falling victim to the terrorism.

oooh... I'm a terrorist. I give credit where it's due. I hold those
responsible reponsible. How terrifying.

>>>>and they did.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not with Lieberman, Nelson, and Conrad insisting on a
>>>mandate.
>>
>>Those are Democrats.
>
>
>
> Do you think only in black and white? The rightie
> binary mind again.

This from someone who claims Obamacare is the Republicans' baby.

> As if the letter in front of the name is the only thing
> that matters.

When you're trying to absolve all Democrats of any responsibility, the
letter is the only thing that matters.

> People wanted a public option and Pubs faught it tooth
> and nail.. and you blame Dems for it.

It doesn't matter what the Republicans wanted. Try to understand this
one fact: The Democrats did not need a single Republican vote.
What's in the law is what the Democrats agreed to among themselves. They
had 60 votes. Republicans couldn't filibuster. They were spectators.

> Fuck off asshole... as usual.

Awww... are you feeling terrorized?

> There should have been some patriotic Americans fighting
> for anything BUT the mandate... but no. Not even ONE
> Republican.

I see. So you're blaming Republicans because they didn't stop Democrats
from passing a law they wanted and had the ability to pass without any
Republican input.

> This is what we have because of people like YOU.

No. It's what we have because of people like the Democrats in Congress
who voted for it and the buffoon in the White House who signed it.

> Its your baby.. you diaper it.

The buck stops in the Oval Office, skippy.

[wy]

Oh, so it's perfectly alright for you to focus on it, then, but nobody
else can, huh? Typical Repugnant self-bestowed exclusivity rights.

[wy]

On Jun 10, 11:23 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gary DW wrote:

> > In article <jr303f$ol...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> > says...
>
> >>Gary DW wrote:
>
> >>>In article <jr1s68$90...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> >>>says...
>
> >>>>Gary DW wrote:
>
> >>>>>In article <jqucmd$i5...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

You very well know why they let it pass. Everybody with a fraction of
a pulsating intellect can see right through the Repugnant tactic,
which they spawned on Inauguration Day during their Night of the Long
Knives.

>
> > You are just too stupid to figure it out.
>
> >  They could've
>
> >>passed anything they wanted...
>
> > You are a liar.
>
> What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
> anything they wanted.

Ya think?

Republicans Block Bill to Aid Small Businesses
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/politics/30cong.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/senate-republicans-block-small-business-aid-bill/19572912/


Republicans Block Unemployment Benefits Extension
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/natInt/story.aspx?storyid=109570&catid=288
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/07/gop_brown_vote.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/25/nation/la-na-jobless-vote-20100625


Republicans Block Bank-Reform Bill
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/democrats-reach-deal-on-tough-derivative-law-2010-04-26
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63Q5CR20100427


Republicans Block Campaign Disclosure Bill
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/07/republicans_blo.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66Q65I20100727
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38434903


Republicans Block Jobs Bill in Senate
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/small-business-jobs-bill-stalls-in-senate/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012485381_congress30.html


GOP Blocks Transparency in Campaign Contributions
http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/gop-blocks-transparency-in-campaign-contributions/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100727/pl_mcclatchy/3578774


Republicans block bill ending tax breaks for US companies sending jobs
offshore
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092802768.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2821013620100928
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017896-503544.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjFU-ZOgeJNcMKBh9YdqcUyzXUPQ?docId=CNG.df9e6a188a034ac23300ab0760b91861.ad1


Republicans Block Bill to Raise Oil Spill Liability Cap
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/14/nation/la-na-oil-spill-new-20100514
http://thenorthcoast.blogspot.com/2010/06/republicans-block-bill-to-raise-oil.html


Republicans Block Wall Street Reform Bill
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/94485-gop-blocks-wall-st-bill
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8644952.stm


GOP blocks Senate campaign-finance bill – again
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/09/senate-campaign-finance/1
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2323068220100923
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/From-the-Wires/2010/0924/Campaign-finance-Republicans-block-bill-to-identify-ad-sponsors


Republicans Block Small Business Lending Bill
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/senate-republicans-block-small-business-lending-bill-sought-by-democrats.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38469644/ns/business-small_business/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100729/ap_on_bi_ge/us_small_business_lending


Republicans Block Repeal of Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/21/republicans-block-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grHLcTA5VMaxM1KPtvrf3OTOfZuQD9ICK7K00
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-repeal-ban-gays-military/story?id=11685658


Senate Republicans Block Own Amendments on Health Care Bill
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/how-senate-republicans-obstruct-health-care


Republicans Block Energy Legislation…Yet Again
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/04/republicans-block-energy-legislation-yet-again/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66H1BS20100718
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2267599/senate-blocks-energy-bill-yet


G.O.P. Blocks Debate on Financial Oversight Bill
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/g-o-p-blocks-debate-on-financial-oversight-bill/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27regulate.html
http://worldjewishnews.blogspot.com/2010/04/gop-blocks-debate-on-financial.html


Republicans Kill Measure That Created 240,000 Jobs
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/30/republicans-kill-measure-that-created-240000-jobs/
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-30/business/24103870_1_jobs-program-summer-jobs-subsidized-employment
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/09/job-99ers-tanf-senate
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/30/if-we-re-serious-about-jobs-don-t-stop-job-creation
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/4/906979/-Republicans-kill-jobs


Senate Republicans block Dems' effort to pass mine safety bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/worker-safety/121457-senate-republicans-block-dems-effort-to-pass-mine-safety-bill


GOP Pledges to Block Immigration Reform
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/25/GOP-pledges-to-block-immigration-bill-push/UPI-56291272231701/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/01/AR2010070100388.html


Republicans Block Democrats’ Efforts to Hold BP Accountable
http://ynative77.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/republicans-block-democrats-efforts-to-hold-bp-accountable-gop-leaving-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-bailing-out-bp-may-18-2010/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007511-503544.html


Senate Republicans Block Two Bills to Spur Renewable Energy Investment
http://www.grist.org/article/no-renewal-for-renewables/


House Republicans Block Medical Help for 9/11 Heroes
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012217-503544.html
http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/07/30/house-republicans-block-medical-help-for-911-heroes/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/nyregion/30zadroga.html


GOP blocks small business bill. Who will get the blame?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/dems_will_get_blamed_for_gop_o.html?hpid=sec-politics


GOP Blocks Financial Reform As Millions Lose Homes
http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5875/gop_blocks_financial_reform_as_millions_lose_homes/


GOP Blocks Small Biz Bill
http://www.phillytrib.com/tribune/newsheadlines/14208-gop-blocks-small-biz-bill.html
http://wwj.cbslocal.com/2010/07/30/republicans-block-small-biz-lending-bill/
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-15/politics/obama.economic.relief_1_tax-cuts-small-business-gop-sens?_s=PM:POLITICS


Senate Republicans Kill Renewable Energy and Job Creation Bill
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080610/senate-republicans-kill-renewable-energy-and-job-creation-bill-wheres-mccain
http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/09/15/who-killed-the-energy-and-climate-bill.html


Republicans Block US Senate Committees From Holding Hearings
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/24/GOP-blocks-Senate-committee-meetings/UPI-88161269468743/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/24/gop-blocks-senate-actions/
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/republicans-block-senate-committees-holding-hearings/


Senate Republicans Promise To Oppose Tax Cuts If Wealthy Aren't
Included
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/mcconnell-every-senate-re_n_714739.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/senate-poised-for-highsta_n_714766.html


Senate Republicans Kill Job-Creating Tax Cuts
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=11232


GOP Blocks 20 Judicial Nominees
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-getting-fewest-judges-confirmed-since-Nixon--102306839.html
http://blog.pfaw.org/content/gop-blocks-20-judicial-nominees-rebuffs-goodwin-liu-again
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202471710311
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/opinion/23thu2.html?th&emc=th


GOP Blocks Freeze on Credit Card Interest Rate Hikes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/gop-blocks-freeze-on-cred_n_362787.html

How Many Jobs Can Republicans Kill This Week?
https://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=326871&

So much for your "truth".

[Gary DW]

In article <jr3tek$1eb$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

Like who?

>
> >>>They took over Congress.
> >>
> >>If they took over Congress, the PPACA never would've passed, with or
> >>without a mandate.
> >
> >
> >
> > They "took over" in that they completely changed the
> > landscape of modern day politics. Let me guess... you
> > STILL think that the record number of filibusters by
> > Pubs has been happening for centuries even though I keep
> > pointing it out everytime we have this discussion?
>
> The PPACA wasn't filibustered. They had 60 votes with every Republican
> senator voting against it.

OMFG!!! How many votes do you think a bill requires to
pass WITHOUT cloture, Vandar???

WHAT A FUCKING MORON!


Pssstttt... a bill only requires 50 votes to pass the
Senate, Vandar. If there's a tie, the vice-prez casts
the deciding vote (IIRC.) Its been that way over two
hundred years... and is something most people should
have learned in government class.

Only the Faux News tea-partiers think all bills need 60
votes to pass the Senate!!!

>
> >>>You are just too stupid to figure it out.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> They could've
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>passed anything they wanted...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You are a liar.
> >>
> >>What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
> >>anything they wanted.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The American people wanted a public option or single
> > payer. So did the vast majority of Dems.
> >
> > But with ZERO Pub cooperation (led by your tea-bagger
> > brethrens) we were left with a mandate. Its the best
> > they could manage.
>
> There were no Tea Party candidates serving in Congress at that time.
>
> > Its your baby... you diaper it.
>
> I love how when every Republican in both chambers votes against a bill
> and it still passes, you blame Republicans.

>
> It's a Democrat law, passed by every Democrat and only Democrats, aigned
> by Democrat POTUS.
> Ownership belongs to the people who signed the title.

Only if you moronically think all bills require 60 votes
to pass in the Senate... which is what you admited to
above.

Without the Pub filibuster, we would have a public
option like the one the House passed... and the American
people would be happy now.

Do I need to show you polling about the public option.
Vandar? You only get your news from rightie propaganda
sources (obviously) so I am sure you are as clueless
about this as simple Senate rules!

>
> > You are nothing more than a political terrorist that
> > blames people for falling victim to the terrorism.
>
> oooh... I'm a terrorist. I give credit where it's due. I hold those
> responsible reponsible. How terrifying.
>
> >>>>and they did.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Not with Lieberman, Nelson, and Conrad insisting on a
> >>>mandate.
> >>
> >>Those are Democrats.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you think only in black and white? The rightie
> > binary mind again.
>
> This from someone who claims Obamacare is the Republicans' baby.
>
> > As if the letter in front of the name is the only thing
> > that matters.
>
> When you're trying to absolve all Democrats of any responsibility, the
> letter is the only thing that matters.

How about this... I blame ONLY the people that didn't
give us a decent bill.


Just two or three more Senators could have provided a
weak public option like the one the House passed.

>
> > People wanted a public option and Pubs faught it tooth
> > and nail.. and you blame Dems for it.
>
> It doesn't matter what the Republicans wanted. Try to understand this
> one fact: The Democrats did not need a single
Republican vote.

Only if you think having a majority is the same as
having control.

> What's in the law is what the Democrats agreed to among themselves. They
> had 60 votes. Republicans couldn't filibuster. They were spectators.

Uhh moron.. they DID filibuster, which is why the 60
votes were needed... you are doubling down on the stupid
now.

JFC.. try a civics class at night school.

A 5th grader knows more about government than you do.

>
> > Fuck off asshole... as usual.
>
> Awww... are you feeling terrorized?

No.. but I am feeling my IQ go down by reading your
posts.

>
> > There should have been some patriotic Americans fighting
> > for anything BUT the mandate... but no. Not even ONE
> > Republican.
>
> I see. So you're blaming Republicans because they didn't stop Democrats
> from passing a law they wanted and had the ability to pass without any
> Republican input.

All they had to is stop the filibuster.

>
> > This is what we have because of people like YOU.
>
> No. It's what we have because of people like the Democrats in Congress
> who voted for it and the buffoon in the White House who signed it.
>
> > Its your baby.. you diaper it.
>
> The buck stops in the Oval Office, skippy.

Just tell us all again how Pubs didn't filibuster the
HCR bill, Vandar!!

[Vandar]

ooh.. three question marks. Does that mean you are REALLY REALLY asking?

> WHAT A FUCKING MORON!
>
>
> Pssstttt... a bill only requires 50 votes to pass the
> Senate, Vandar. If there's a tie, the vice-prez casts
> the deciding vote (IIRC.) Its been that way over two
> hundred years... and is something most people should
> have learned in government class.

What school did you go to that called such a thing "government class"?

> Only the Faux News tea-partiers think all bills need 60
> votes to pass the Senate!!!

I didn't say or imply that all bills need 60 votes to pass the Senate,
no matter how many exclamation points your teenager mindset adds.
They had 60 votes. Any attempt at a filibuster would've been useless
because they had 60 votes.

>>>>>You are just too stupid to figure it out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They could've
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>passed anything they wanted...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are a liar.
>>>>
>>>>What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
>>>>anything they wanted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The American people wanted a public option or single
>>>payer. So did the vast majority of Dems.
>>>
>>>But with ZERO Pub cooperation (led by your tea-bagger
>>>brethrens) we were left with a mandate. Its the best
>>>they could manage.
>>
>>There were no Tea Party candidates serving in Congress at that time.
>>
>>
>>>Its your baby... you diaper it.
>>
>>I love how when every Republican in both chambers votes against a bill
>>and it still passes, you blame Republicans.
>
>
>>It's a Democrat law, passed by every Democrat and only Democrats, aigned
>>by Democrat POTUS.
>>Ownership belongs to the people who signed the title.
>
>
>
> Only if you moronically think all bills require 60 votes
> to pass in the Senate... which is what you admited to
> above.

No, that's what you claim I said, even though I never said it.

> Without the Pub filibuster, we would have a public
> option like the one the House passed... and the American
> people would be happy now.

Wrong. Ben Nelson wanted a bigger Medicaid payout to his state, so he
threatened to filibuster until he got it.
It was called the Cornhusker Kickback, and once Nelson got what he
wanted, the Democrats had their 60 votes.

> Do I need to show you polling about the public option.
> Vandar? You only get your news from rightie propaganda
> sources (obviously) so I am sure you are as clueless
> about this as simple Senate rules!

You love your little exclamation points, don't ya.
We aren't discussing public opinion polls.

>>>You are nothing more than a political terrorist that
>>>blames people for falling victim to the terrorism.
>>
>>oooh... I'm a terrorist. I give credit where it's due. I hold those
>>responsible reponsible. How terrifying.
>>
>>
>>>>>>and they did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not with Lieberman, Nelson, and Conrad insisting on a
>>>>>mandate.
>>>>
>>>>Those are Democrats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you think only in black and white? The rightie
>>>binary mind again.
>>
>>This from someone who claims Obamacare is the Republicans' baby.
>>
>>
>>>As if the letter in front of the name is the only thing
>>>that matters.
>>
>>When you're trying to absolve all Democrats of any responsibility, the
>>letter is the only thing that matters.
>
>
>
> How about this... I blame ONLY the people that didn't
> give us a decent bill.

How about blaming the people who gave us the bill that passed, which you
now admit is not "decent"?

> Just two or three more Senators could have provided a
> weak public option like the one the House passed.

And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.

>>>People wanted a public option and Pubs faught it tooth
>>>and nail.. and you blame Dems for it.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what the Republicans wanted. Try to understand this
>>one fact: The Democrats did not need a single
>
> Republican vote.
>
>
> Only if you think having a majority is the same as
> having control.

Majority is control. They always have an out if they feel strongly
enough about an issue.
Filibusters can be nuked.

>>What's in the law is what the Democrats agreed to among themselves. They
>>had 60 votes. Republicans couldn't filibuster. They were spectators.
>
>
>
>
> Uhh moron.. they DID filibuster, which is why the 60
> votes were needed... you are doubling down on the stupid
> now.

They THREATENED to filibuster. They never actually did it. The only
reason that threat was credible was because Ben Nelson, a Democrat,
wanted a bigger benefit for his state. Without Nelson joining the
Republicans, a threat of a filibuster was meaningless. All they needed
to do was give Nelson what he wanted and that gave them 60 votes.
It was Nelson who made the filibuster a legitimate threat. It was Nelson
who was the 60th vote.

> JFC.. try a civics class at night school.

Don't you mean "government class"?

> A 5th grader knows more about government than you do.

Let me know when you reach 5th grade.

>>>Fuck off asshole... as usual.
>>
>>Awww... are you feeling terrorized?
>
>
>
> No.. but I am feeling my IQ go down by reading your
> posts.

Says the idiot who uses "JFC", "prolly", and multiple punctuation marks,
just like a texting teenage girl.

>>>There should have been some patriotic Americans fighting
>>>for anything BUT the mandate... but no. Not even ONE
>>>Republican.
>>
>>I see. So you're blaming Republicans because they didn't stop Democrats
>>from passing a law they wanted and had the ability to pass without any
>>Republican input.
>
>
>
>
> All they had to is stop the filibuster.

The filibuster never started. It was a threat, and it was only made
possible by Ben Nelson.

>>>This is what we have because of people like YOU.
>>
>>No. It's what we have because of people like the Democrats in Congress
>>who voted for it and the buffoon in the White House who signed it.
>>
>>
>>>Its your baby.. you diaper it.
>>
>>The buck stops in the Oval Office, skippy.
>
>
>
> Just tell us all again how Pubs didn't filibuster the
> HCR bill, Vandar!!

They didn't. A threat to act is not the commission of the act.

[Gary DW]

In article <jr5781$q97$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

(crickets)

> >
> >
> >>>>>They took over Congress.
> >>>>
> >>>>If they took over Congress, the PPACA never would've passed, with or
> >>>>without a mandate.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>They "took over" in that they completely changed the
> >>>landscape of modern day politics. Let me guess... you
> >>>STILL think that the record number of filibusters by
> >>>Pubs has been happening for centuries even though I keep
> >>>pointing it out everytime we have this discussion?
> >>
> >>The PPACA wasn't filibustered. They had 60 votes with every Republican
> >>senator voting against it.
> >
> >
> >
> > OMFG!!! How many votes do you think a bill requires to
> > pass WITHOUT cloture, Vandar???
>
> ooh.. three question marks. Does that mean you are REALLY REALLY asking?
>
> > WHAT A FUCKING MORON!
> >
> >
> > Pssstttt... a bill only requires 50 votes to pass the
> > Senate, Vandar. If there's a tie, the vice-prez casts
> > the deciding vote (IIRC.) Its been that way over two
> > hundred years... and is something most people should
> > have learned in government class.
>
> What school did you go to that called such a thing "government class"?

Actually thats what they called it in my HS in the
midwest.

Did you even make it that far?

>
> > Only the Faux News tea-partiers think all bills need 60
> > votes to pass the Senate!!!
>
> I didn't say or imply that all bills need 60 votes to pass the Senate,
> no matter how many exclamation points your teenager mindset adds.
> They had 60 votes. Any attempt at a filibuster would've been useless
> because they had 60 votes.

So that explains why you said that Pubs didn't
filibuster the bill?

If they had allowed a straight up and down vote (which
has been the norm for 200 years) there would have been a
very robust HCR bill passed.

And you wouldn't be whining and pointing fingers like a
12 year old.

>
> >>>>>You are just too stupid to figure it out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>They could've
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>passed anything they wanted...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You are a liar.
> >>>>
> >>>>What I said is a truth, supported by the fact that they did pass
> >>>>anything they wanted.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The American people wanted a public option or single
> >>>payer. So did the vast majority of Dems.
> >>>
> >>>But with ZERO Pub cooperation (led by your tea-bagger
> >>>brethrens) we were left with a mandate. Its the best
> >>>they could manage.
> >>
> >>There were no Tea Party candidates serving in Congress at that time.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Its your baby... you diaper it.
> >>
> >>I love how when every Republican in both chambers votes against a bill
> >>and it still passes, you blame Republicans.
> >
> >
> >>It's a Democrat law, passed by every Democrat and only Democrats, aigned
> >>by Democrat POTUS.
> >>Ownership belongs to the people who signed the title.
> >
> >
> >
> > Only if you moronically think all bills require 60 votes
> > to pass in the Senate... which is what you admited to
> > above.
>
> No, that's what you claim I said, even though I never said it.

You said it wasn't filibustered... here:

> >>The PPACA wasn't filibustered.

You either think that a filibuster STARTS at 60 votes,
or you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

>
> > Without the Pub filibuster, we would have a public
> > option like the one the House passed... and the American
> > people would be happy now.
>
> Wrong. Ben Nelson wanted a bigger Medicaid payout to his state, so he
> threatened to filibuster until he got it.

Irrelevant if enough Pubs had simply agreed to a
straight up and down vote... which used to be the norm
for 200 years.

So if you have people in your company that refuse to do
any work at all while on your payroll, you blame the
others that actually tried to get something done if the
results are subsstandard?

Why do you do everything backwards?

Oh wait... you also think that firing people eases
unemployment... ie, your demands for austerity during a
recession.

>
> > Just two or three more Senators could have provided a
> > weak public option like the one the House passed.
>
> And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.

Ja.. goofy me demanding our Senators actually do some
work to provide the citizens robust and effective bills.

>
> >>>People wanted a public option and Pubs faught it tooth
> >>>and nail.. and you blame Dems for it.
> >>
> >>It doesn't matter what the Republicans wanted. Try to understand this
> >>one fact: The Democrats did not need a single
> >
> > Republican vote.
> >
> >
> > Only if you think having a majority is the same as
> > having control.
>
> Majority is control. They always have an out if they feel strongly
> enough about an issue.
> Filibusters can be nuked.
>
> >>What's in the law is what the Democrats agreed to among themselves. They
> >>had 60 votes. Republicans couldn't filibuster. They were spectators.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Uhh moron.. they DID filibuster, which is why the 60
> > votes were needed... you are doubling down on the stupid
> > now.
>
> They THREATENED to filibuster.

No you moron, they filibustered it. The 60th vote was
to override the filibuster via cloture.

JFC.

They never actually did it. The only
> reason that threat was credible was because Ben Nelson, a Democrat,
> wanted a bigger benefit for his state. Without Nelson joining the
> Republicans, a threat of a filibuster was meaningless. All they needed
> to do was give Nelson what he wanted and that gave them 60 votes.
> It was Nelson who made the filibuster a legitimate threat. It was Nelson
> who was the 60th vote.

So the other 59 are completely off the hook?

Yup.. you do reward people for doing nothing.

Can I apply for a job at your company so I can sit
around doing nothing and watching the people that do
actual work get the blame??

>
> > JFC.. try a civics class at night school.
>
> Don't you mean "government class"?

Boy, you sure think you're clever don't you?

Is this supposed to make me forget that you claimed the
HCR bill wasn't filibustered?

>
> > A 5th grader knows more about government than you do.
>
> Let me know when you reach 5th grade.
>
> >>>Fuck off asshole... as usual.
> >>
> >>Awww... are you feeling terrorized?
> >
> >
> >
> > No.. but I am feeling my IQ go down by reading your
> > posts.
>
> Says the idiot who uses "JFC", "prolly", and multiple punctuation marks,
> just like a texting teenage girl.
>
> >>>There should have been some patriotic Americans fighting
> >>>for anything BUT the mandate... but no. Not even ONE
> >>>Republican.
> >>
> >>I see. So you're blaming Republicans because they didn't stop Democrats
> >>from passing a law they wanted and had the ability to pass without any
> >>Republican input.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All they had to is stop the filibuster.
>
> The filibuster never started. It was a threat, and it was only made
> possible by Ben Nelson.

If there was no successful filibuster, why did it need
60 votes, Vandar?

Stop breakdancing and man up... you don't know what the
hell you are talking about.

If Pubs hadn't successfully used the filibuster on the
bill, there would have been a straight up vote.

The 60th vote was only needed because of Pubs blocking
the voting on the bill.

TAKE A CIVICS CLASS... JFC!

Or at least go to Wiki and look up the word
"filibuster." Here, I'll even make it easy for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or
a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish
and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of
the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[36] (usually 60 out
of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking
cloture under Senate Rule XXII.



The 60th vote was to overcome the successful filibuster
via cloture... so they could actually vote on the damn
bill.

JFC... anything more you need help with? How to pour
piss our of your boot?

>
> >>>This is what we have because of people like YOU.
> >>
> >>No. It's what we have because of people like the Democrats in Congress
> >>who voted for it and the buffoon in the White House who signed it.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Its your baby.. you diaper it.
> >>
> >>The buck stops in the Oval Office, skippy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just tell us all again how Pubs didn't filibuster the
> > HCR bill, Vandar!!
>
> They didn't. A threat to act is not the commission of the act.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb with all the
other rightard morons.

[Vandar]

Gary DW wrote:

> In article <jr5781$q97$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
> says...
>
>
>
>>Gary DW wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ha.. are there any moderate Republicans even left?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Like who?
>>>
>
>
>
> (crickets)

Did you want names.

Both of the Senators from Maine.

>>>>>>>They took over Congress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If they took over Congress, the PPACA never would've passed, with or
>>>>>>without a mandate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They "took over" in that they completely changed the
>>>>>landscape of modern day politics. Let me guess... you
>>>>>STILL think that the record number of filibusters by
>>>>>Pubs has been happening for centuries even though I keep
>>>>>pointing it out everytime we have this discussion?
>>>>
>>>>The PPACA wasn't filibustered. They had 60 votes with every Republican
>>>>senator voting against it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>OMFG!!! How many votes do you think a bill requires to
>>>pass WITHOUT cloture, Vandar???
>>
>>ooh.. three question marks. Does that mean you are REALLY REALLY asking?
>>
>>
>>>WHAT A FUCKING MORON!
>>>
>>>
>>>Pssstttt... a bill only requires 50 votes to pass the
>>>Senate, Vandar. If there's a tie, the vice-prez casts
>>>the deciding vote (IIRC.) Its been that way over two
>>>hundred years... and is something most people should
>>>have learned in government class.
>>
>>What school did you go to that called such a thing "government class"?
>
>
>
> Actually thats what they called it in my HS in the
> midwest.
>
> Did you even make it that far?

I never attended high school in the midwest, no.

>>>Only the Faux News tea-partiers think all bills need 60
>>>votes to pass the Senate!!!
>>
>>I didn't say or imply that all bills need 60 votes to pass the Senate,
>>no matter how many exclamation points your teenager mindset adds.
>>They had 60 votes. Any attempt at a filibuster would've been useless
>>because they had 60 votes.
>
>
>
>
> So that explains why you said that Pubs didn't
> filibuster the bill?

I said they didn't filibuster because they didn't filibuster.

> If they had allowed a straight up and down vote (which
> has been the norm for 200 years) there would have been a
> very robust HCR bill passed.

The norm for 200 years? The filibuster has existed and been used for 200
years.

It wasn't filibustered. There was a threat to filibuster, but it never
happened. The only way it could've happened is if a Democrat, let's say
Ben Nelson, joined the Republicans in a filibuster.

>>>Without the Pub filibuster, we would have a public
>>>option like the one the House passed... and the American
>>>people would be happy now.
>>
>>Wrong. Ben Nelson wanted a bigger Medicaid payout to his state, so he
>>threatened to filibuster until he got it.
>
>
>
> Irrelevant if enough Pubs had simply agreed to a
> straight up and down vote... which used to be the norm
> for 200 years.

Do you think the filibuster has only existed since Obama took office?

I blame substandard work on the people who did it.
Just as those on my payroll who refuse to do any work can blame
themselves for their immediate unemployment.

> Why do you do everything backwards?
>
> Oh wait... you also think that firing people eases
> unemployment... ie, your demands for austerity during a
> recession.

Now you're just making shit up. I've never in my life said anything even
remotely close to firing people eases unemployment.

>>>Just two or three more Senators could have provided a
>>>weak public option like the one the House passed.
>>
>>And if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle.
>
>
>
>
> Ja.. goofy me demanding our Senators actually do some
> work to provide the citizens robust and effective bills.

Your blameless Democrats could've just nuked the bill into a simple
majority vote. Instead, they folded under a threat that was only viable
because one of their own joined the opposition.
All they had to do, and did, was give in to that one Democrat and then
they could, and did, pass whatever they wanted.

>>>>>People wanted a public option and Pubs faught it tooth
>>>>>and nail.. and you blame Dems for it.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter what the Republicans wanted. Try to understand this
>>>>one fact: The Democrats did not need a single
>>>
>>>Republican vote.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you think having a majority is the same as
>>>having control.
>>
>>Majority is control. They always have an out if they feel strongly
>>enough about an issue.
>>Filibusters can be nuked.
>>
>>
>>>>What's in the law is what the Democrats agreed to among themselves. They
>>>>had 60 votes. Republicans couldn't filibuster. They were spectators.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Uhh moron.. they DID filibuster, which is why the 60
>>>votes were needed... you are doubling down on the stupid
>>>now.
>>
>>They THREATENED to filibuster.
>
>
>
> No you moron, they filibustered it. The 60th vote was
> to override the filibuster via cloture.

It overrode the threat of a filibuster.

> JFC.

Like, OMG.

> They never actually did it. The only
>
>>reason that threat was credible was because Ben Nelson, a Democrat,
>>wanted a bigger benefit for his state. Without Nelson joining the
>>Republicans, a threat of a filibuster was meaningless. All they needed
>>to do was give Nelson what he wanted and that gave them 60 votes.
>>It was Nelson who made the filibuster a legitimate threat. It was Nelson
>>who was the 60th vote.
>
>
>
> So the other 59 are completely off the hook?

No. As I've been telling you for two days now, all 60 of them are on the
hook.

> Yup.. you do reward people for doing nothing.
>
> Can I apply for a job at your company so I can sit
> around doing nothing and watching the people that do
> actual work get the blame??
>
>
>
>
>>>JFC.. try a civics class at night school.
>>
>>Don't you mean "government class"?
>
>
>
>
> Boy, you sure think you're clever don't you?
>
> Is this supposed to make me forget that you claimed the
> HCR bill wasn't filibustered?

I don't want you to forget I said it. I want you to accept it as the
fact it is.

A threat of a filibuster is not a filibuster. Just as a threat to kill
someone is not murder.

>>>A 5th grader knows more about government than you do.
>>
>>Let me know when you reach 5th grade.
>>
>>
>>>>>Fuck off asshole... as usual.
>>>>
>>>>Awww... are you feeling terrorized?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No.. but I am feeling my IQ go down by reading your
>>>posts.
>>
>>Says the idiot who uses "JFC", "prolly", and multiple punctuation marks,
>>just like a texting teenage girl.
>>
>>
>>>>>There should have been some patriotic Americans fighting
>>>>>for anything BUT the mandate... but no. Not even ONE
>>>>>Republican.
>>>>
>>>>I see. So you're blaming Republicans because they didn't stop Democrats
>>>
>>>>from passing a law they wanted and had the ability to pass without any
>>>
>>>>Republican input.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>All they had to is stop the filibuster.
>>
>>The filibuster never started. It was a threat, and it was only made
>>possible by Ben Nelson.
>
>
>
> If there was no successful filibuster, why did it need
> 60 votes, Vandar?

*sigh*
It didn't NEED 60 votes. It HAD 60 votes.

> Stop breakdancing and man up... you don't know what the
> hell you are talking about.

Wrong. You don't know what I'm talking about.
You seem to think a threat of a filibuster is an actual filibuster. The
Dems wanted to nail down 60 votes **to eliminate the threat**, not to
end a filibuster already underway.

> If Pubs hadn't successfully used the filibuster on the
> bill, there would have been a straight up vote.

There was no filibuster.

> The 60th vote was only needed because of Pubs blocking
> the voting on the bill.

They weren't blocking it.

> TAKE A CIVICS CLASS... JFC!
>
> Or at least go to Wiki and look up the word
> "filibuster." Here, I'll even make it easy for you:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
>
> In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or
> a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish
> and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of
> the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[36] (usually 60 out
> of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking
> cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

Hell, if you're going to cite Wikipedia as an authority, here:

"On December 23, the Senate voted 60-39 to end debate on the bill,
eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ppaca

Note the part that says "to eliminate the possibility". That means there
wasn't a filibuster, only the threat of one.

> The 60th vote was to overcome the successful filibuster
> via cloture... so they could actually vote on the damn
> bill.

The 60th vote was "to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster", not
overcome a filibuster that was succeeding.

> JFC... anything more you need help with? How to pour
> piss our of your boot?

You'd have more credibility if you didn't write like a child... and were
right.

>>>>>This is what we have because of people like YOU.
>>>>
>>>>No. It's what we have because of people like the Democrats in Congress
>>>>who voted for it and the buffoon in the White House who signed it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Its your baby.. you diaper it.
>>>>
>>>>The buck stops in the Oval Office, skippy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Just tell us all again how Pubs didn't filibuster the
>>>HCR bill, Vandar!!
>>
>>They didn't. A threat to act is not the commission of the act.
>
>
>
> You have no clue what you are talking about.
>
> Go sit in the corner and suck your thumb with all the
> other rightard morons.

He says, as he begins to realize that he's wrong.

[Gary DW]

In article <jr67o9$f1f$1...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar

{PLONK}