U
G
Guest
Guest
I’d like to see the death of both parties. In fact, jerk-offs from both sides should get together and beat the piss out of each other.
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
As you did not answer mine, in post 46.
Show me credible evidence that the "Slaughter Rule" is actually being considered by Democrats, and I'll tell you what I think of that procedure, as suggested.
BigGator5
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 4,830
Whatever. The only thing you will find credible would be the NYT (which is far from credible themselves), so you won't believe any other source or claim any source I put forward as not credible.
cebalrai
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Posts
- 3,343
This is a letter to the editor.
A random partisan opinion from a partisan publication.
You get your news from sources like this, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Yet you still don't see why you're an angry, irrational extremist?
By the way, this is the newspaper that got busted for giving cash rewards to its reporters for giving their stories conservative slants. But you still listen tp them?
A random partisan opinion from a partisan publication.
You get your news from sources like this, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Yet you still don't see why you're an angry, irrational extremist?
By the way, this is the newspaper that got busted for giving cash rewards to its reporters for giving their stories conservative slants. But you still listen tp them?
Last edited:
zipman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2002
- Posts
- 38,552
Maybe if we had healthcare reform, Obama could have taken care of his "sick Obsession" through preventative care?
M
miles
Guest
cebalrai, you're not only a liar, you're an ignorant one, too.
On ABC’s “Top Line” today, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said that scenario is attractive to many House Democrats who have serious reservations about the Senate bill.
Asked if she would be comfortable with the House voting to deem the bill passed, rather than actually taking a recorded vote on the Senate-passed bill, Woolsey said: “I would be OK with that.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...y-pass-senate-bill-without-recorded-vote.html
Asshole.
On ABC’s “Top Line” today, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said that scenario is attractive to many House Democrats who have serious reservations about the Senate bill.
Asked if she would be comfortable with the House voting to deem the bill passed, rather than actually taking a recorded vote on the Senate-passed bill, Woolsey said: “I would be OK with that.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...y-pass-senate-bill-without-recorded-vote.html
Asshole.
Actually, ignorance is an effective defense against claims of mendacity.
They have to know what the truth is in order to lie.
Otherwise they're just being wrong.
cf. Bush on Iraqi WMD, etc.
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
Hey now, did I not give the thumbs up to your CBO link in the other thread?
Looks like Miles has taken care of this anyway, so no worries.
A link to a credible source - with video, no less. Thanks.
"As House Democrats press for final passage of a health care bill, a legislative scenario has emerged whereby the House wouldn't have to take a formal roll call vote to endorse the Senate version of the legislation.
Instead, the House would craft a special piece of legislation declaring the Senate bill to have been passed by the House when the House approves its package of 'fixes' under the budget reconciliation process. That would spare House members of the perception of endorsing politically explosive Senate deals such as the 'Cornhusker Kickback.' ”
Christ, these people are sackless weenies. That's what I think about that scenario.
They'd still have to vote on the "deeming" legislation, so it's not like they'd be avoiding a head count on the actual substance. And if they take the weenie road, they throw the whole package into a pit of controversy over substance plus procedure to boot.
cebalrai
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Posts
- 3,343
I thought you had legit news sources blocked in your browser to be honest.
Still, your head is a mile up the heiney hole of partisan talking heads, which is why you have no credibility.
M
miles
Guest
You asked for a credible news source, I posted one, and you look like an asshole once again.
I was joking before about you behaving like LT. Now - not so much.
BigGator5
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 4,830
And what if Obama signs it into law? Will the SCOTUS have a good reason to throw it all out?
cebalrai
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Posts
- 3,343
No, you posted a blog. You've been posting blogs as "credible news sources" for months, if not years. Apparently you're incapable of distinguishing between news and opinion pieces.
I mean... I JUST challenged you on this point and what do you do? You link another blog.
Just... wow.
BigGator5
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 4,830
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
The corrupt ‘Slaughter Solution’
Ah, yes — the "Slaughter Solution," they're calling it. The latest move by the transparent, above-politics Democrats to slaughter the democratic process in the hopes that Americans are just dumb enough to fall for yet another ruse. The House passes — or rejects — a rule before it considers any given piece of legislation; this rule lays out the parameters for debating that particular bill. Sometimes these rules are strict, sometimes they’re lax; it all depends on how much debate time or how many amendments they want to allow on a given piece of legislation. And then sometimes the rules are just plum dirty. Like this Slaughter Solution.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and says she can pass the rule that will govern how the House handles the Senate-passed healthcare legislation by saying, simply, well — get this — that the House doesn't have to vote on that legislation.
Yes, the House is considering passing a rule that says it doesn’t have to do its job and vote on a bill. The rule would simply "deem" the Senate-passed healthcare bill — and the reconciliation bill that will get rid of things like Gatorade and the Cornhusker Kickback — as passed by the House, allowing them not to have to subsequently vote for its passage.
Huh? If, procedurally, that didn't make much sense to you, you're not alone. If, politically, you're wondering how passing the rule to deem a bill passed is substantively different from voting for the bill, you're also not alone.
Putting aside the sneaky, slimy sleight-of-hand the Slaughter Solution would allow Democrats to pull off, I wonder: Do Slaughter and House Democrats think this will fool anyone? The idea is to allow vulnerable, squishy House Democrats not to have to vote directly on the Senate bill. But they act like people won't be able to put two and two together — as if voting for the rule that deems it passed is any different than voting to pass it.
I'm not entirely sure who — aside from the Dems themselves — is fooled by this. Juries don’t fall for this reasoning — you don’t get a free pass if you hired someone to murder your wife but didn’t pull the trigger — and neither will voters, just because this time the context is different. After all, juries and voters are basically one and the same, right?
By Armstrong Williams, THE HILL
Ah, yes — the "Slaughter Solution," they're calling it. The latest move by the transparent, above-politics Democrats to slaughter the democratic process in the hopes that Americans are just dumb enough to fall for yet another ruse. The House passes — or rejects — a rule before it considers any given piece of legislation; this rule lays out the parameters for debating that particular bill. Sometimes these rules are strict, sometimes they’re lax; it all depends on how much debate time or how many amendments they want to allow on a given piece of legislation. And then sometimes the rules are just plum dirty. Like this Slaughter Solution.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and says she can pass the rule that will govern how the House handles the Senate-passed healthcare legislation by saying, simply, well — get this — that the House doesn't have to vote on that legislation.
Yes, the House is considering passing a rule that says it doesn’t have to do its job and vote on a bill. The rule would simply "deem" the Senate-passed healthcare bill — and the reconciliation bill that will get rid of things like Gatorade and the Cornhusker Kickback — as passed by the House, allowing them not to have to subsequently vote for its passage.
Huh? If, procedurally, that didn't make much sense to you, you're not alone. If, politically, you're wondering how passing the rule to deem a bill passed is substantively different from voting for the bill, you're also not alone.
Putting aside the sneaky, slimy sleight-of-hand the Slaughter Solution would allow Democrats to pull off, I wonder: Do Slaughter and House Democrats think this will fool anyone? The idea is to allow vulnerable, squishy House Democrats not to have to vote directly on the Senate bill. But they act like people won't be able to put two and two together — as if voting for the rule that deems it passed is any different than voting to pass it.
I'm not entirely sure who — aside from the Dems themselves — is fooled by this. Juries don’t fall for this reasoning — you don’t get a free pass if you hired someone to murder your wife but didn’t pull the trigger — and neither will voters, just because this time the context is different. After all, juries and voters are basically one and the same, right?
By Armstrong Williams, THE HILL
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Yeah, we all thought that when it came to that abominable McCain-Feingold, and it's STILL being sorted out...
Something like this, even sorted out, can't really be undone once people are put out of business and government bureaucracies established and entrenched...
Like when Newt was going to do away with the Department of Education.
What did that get us?
No Child Left Behind and local entities lowering standards to meet government "targets*..."
* Think: Five and Seven year plans.
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
JMohegan said:
What the NYT omitted is the validity of modifications that can be made under the reconciliation process.
Mr. Frumin, a nonpartisan civil servant who got his start as a precedents writer for the House, as parliamentarian rules on arcane procedural questions may determine whether the changes are, as the original writers of the reconciliation process intended, budgetary measures.
Under reconciliation, Democrats must adhere to the “Byrd rule,” named for the senator, which dictates that every provision in a reconciliation bill must be directly related to the underlying budget.
In a series of closed-door sessions known as “Byrd baths,” Mr. Frumin will consider which provisions can stay and which must go. (Those struck are known, in Senate parlance, as “Byrd droppings.”)
Historically, Senate leaders never overrule the parliamentarian. In the event that Mr. Frumin's rulings upset the Democrats’ plan to modify many non-budgetary issues in the bill, Vice-President Biden can step in to override the Parliamentarian's rulings.
Of course, the entire matter will ultimately be challenged on legal grounds, if these actions (including the Slaughter Solution) are used.
Last edited:
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
*chuckle*
I almost didn't read that. I skip most of your C&P's, especially when I've already quoted from them...
I almost didn't read that. I skip most of your C&P's, especially when I've already quoted from them...
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know.
I will say that it seems remarkably short-sighted (not to mention idiotic) to employ the "deemed passed" legislation, if that would indeed give the SCOTUS good reason to throw it all out.
If that's how it all plays out, I'd be both disgusted and hell pissed.
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
M
miles
Guest
That song is slimy as hell...reminds me of white racists who used to call black people "nigras" as if they were saying "Negroes."
BigGator5
Sic Semper Tyrannis
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 4,830
Then you of all people should be against this option of passing ObamaCare. Why risk it being repealed?
JMohegan
.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Posts
- 8,226
Yes, I'm against this "deemed passed" nonsense. I thought I made that clear.
I say fuck the weenie method and pull the trigger already. Vote to pass the Senate bill and then fight like hell to fix it.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
Funniest post EVER!!!!!
No shit, Ishmael is still holding his breath in anticipation of a violent uprising against the government.
I needed a good laugh today. Thanks Ish.
Similar threads
