Reconciliation...

[Vanquish]

Murf, figures you'd spout the party line about the McCain comment. McCain was taking a shot at the Pres and the Pres responded back IN KIND. You can take his response as arrogant...but only if you forget the context which was McCain trying to pin BO's fat to the fire. You try to bite...you get bit back. That's how it works.

Again... what did McCain say that was a lie? All those carve-outs and bribes are right there in the Senate bill, Obama's starting point. Both McCain *AND* Obama had indeed promised to end this kind of corruption. But, Obama had no rational response for it, nothing but a snide comment to McCain about the election being over.

I'm not a shill for the DNC. I'm a left-leaning centrist. I'm pro-life, I'm pro-gun, I'm pro-term limits. Those are 3 big checkmarks in the conservative column. I'm also for spending more on ferreting out welfare cheats (the insurance companies do do one thing right...they spend the right amount uncovering fraud) and I'm against immigration amnesty/enforcing immigration without giving in. Ohh...wait...am I sounding like a liberal? Thought not.

In fact, I pride myself on going with good ideas..not a particular party. To be new-ageiy about it, "my self-esteem is invested in it" if that paints a clearer picture for you. That being the case, I DVR'd the damn thing...and watched it trying to be as unbiased to either side as possible. It's my belief that anyone who does that...doesnt have to agree with BO, but should admit to themselves he tried to be fair.

Refusal to budge off a fundamentally unacceptable piece of legislation is NOT "trying to be fair". Not even close. There were some items that could be hashed out on both sides, but the poison pills had to be abandoned in order to get there. A child could understand that. But not Obama? Is that what we're supposed to believe?
Or is it more likely that he never had any intention of conducting honest negotiations?

You don't agree..and that's your choice. But just saying that he monopolized the conversation isn't proof enough for me. He was the moderator and also the person to whom most of the questions were addressed to. I'll totally agree with you that there could have been a much better process inside that room. I've negotiated settlements and done mediations that were just as emotional and contentious/detailed...and gotten to an agreement. (Not being arrogant, just trying to relate to the situation)

I'll even go so far as to say that the pork in the bill is worthy of starting over...IF we could be sure that it wouldnt happen again. But we both know it will. In a perfect world would starting over be a good idea? Sure. I agree. But this isnt a perfect world. There are some Republicans who want to do it because it might be the right thing to do. There are others who want to do it as a delaying tactic and perhaps a killing tactic. A way to attack BO for not doing something yet.

If you can't at least admit that there are good AND bad reasons to start over, you're not being very objective.

Maybe you'd have a case for claiming that some Republicans are obstructing for political reasons... if the bill wasn't such a godawful pile of crap. As it is, the absolutely right and correct thing to do is to stop it any way possible.

At the bottom line, we aren't going to get GOOD LEGISLATION until this utter mess is pushed aside. There's no way forward until we move the wreck off the road.

And if they continue forward, like it appears they will... Democrats WILL pay for the "audacity" of ignoring the American people. They're operating under the assumption that their losses will be small and temporary. But even some of your own guys are saying different.

Trust in government--which has been trending substantially downward since the crash of 2008--is in tipping-point territory right now. A recent New York Times poll showed that 70% of Americans are angry or dissatisfied with how Washington is handling the people's business; 80% said that members of Congress are more interested in pandering to special interest groups than in serving the needs of people who elected them; and 81% said members of Congress across the board deserve to be thrown out. A new CNN poll out this week goes a step further and shows that 56% of Americans now think the federal government poses a threat to their rights, with even 37% of Democrats sharing that view.

Those numbers beg the question: Would the Democrats actually be better off if their comprehensive health care bill does not pass? I tend to think so, though as I argued last week, the best course for Democrats would be to skip the all-or-nothing trap and pass a center-out bill that contains the 80% of insurance reforms on which both sides already agree.

(more...)
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/he...pularity-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.htm

This guy repeats the "80% meme" ... but at the bottom line, there were probably 8-10 things that Democrats and Republicans could have agreed on outside the format of the poisoned Senate bill. It wouldn't have taken long to run them up in another bill and fly them through both Houses. The fact that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it... should tell you something.

But Murf, do you honestly think Obama wanted that Pork in there? You think that if he had the chance to waive a wand...and say...PORK BEGONE!! that he wouldn't do it? Of course he would. And McCain knows that whether you like it or not...things dont get done without it. And I'm sure Obama worked against it, but then there came a point where he couldnt go any further and made a utilitarian decision.

Furthermore, for McCain's comment NOT to be a cheap shot, prove to me that he never made one pork deal himself. Can you? Doubtful. So it was a cheap shot and the president defended himself....

But now we're side-tracked...give me more examples of this arrogant bastard in action. That was your utterly obvious and predictable 1st salvo...keep going. Give us some beef in stead of chicken liver.

And you keep saying its a godawful pile of crap. That's an assertion, not a proof or an argument. More liver.

It's great that you can't at least admit there's some gamesmanship involved by some people. That's not a huge gotcha..it's asking you to be objective and realistic. Care to stop drinking the Kool-Aid?

The reason why they won't drop the bill and restart is because it's republican gamesmanship. If the parts are already agreed to...cut the parts that arent...dont start all the way over. New pork will spring up if you do. That's a fact. If there was a magical cure for pork it'd have been fixed by now.

For people that complain about efficiency, you sure to want to go to a lot of extra work for no payoff. I'm so tempted to make an off-color joke about masturbation

 

[Murf76]

A Henny Penny Polka party has broken out again. No facts, no compassion, no empathy, noting but avarice, bigotry and fear mongering. - no rational debate allowed!

Let's suppose the preamble to the our Constitution is a vision statement, provided by the founders for all future generatons to use as a guide post for governance. All agree, do we not, that providing for the common defense is good, just, and, dare I write "Constitutional"?
Then how may the "general welfare" be viewed? I know, this question may take some, err...thought and that may scare most of you. But, give it a try.
And what of "establish justice"; given that all of our founders were surely aware of the Magna Carta and The rights of Man - what of the support by some Americans who believe habeas corpus is simply a foreign word?

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
--James Madison

As far as "establishing justice" is concerned.... the Constitution deals with justice in the establishment of courts. We're not talking about commie "social justice", which is utterly arbitrary. If we were going to take the preamble as authorizing anything-goes to Congress, the founders wouldn't have bothered with enumerating specific powers.

Personally, I thinl if we were forced to look at it your way... could stretch "insure domestic Tranquility" to banish statists from our shores. Just load you up and drop you off in a dinghy in international waters. Things sure as hell would be alot more "tranquil" here at home.

 

[saveliberty]

This is a two-step process no? First the House has to find acceptable the Senate version. It appears that wil not happen unless several provisions are changed or dropped. At that point 51 Senators will have to approve the changes. 218 Representatives have to say okay first. That might be a stretch.

 

[Murf76]

But Murf, do you honestly think Obama wanted that Pork in there? You think that if he had the chance to waive a wand...and say...PORK BEGONE!! that he wouldn't do it? Of course he would. And McCain knows that whether you like it or not...things dont get done without it. And I'm sure Obama worked against it, but then there came a point where he couldnt go any further and made a utilitarian decision.

Furthermore, for McCain's comment NOT to be a cheap shot, prove to me that he never made one pork deal himself. Can you? Doubtful. So it was a cheap shot and the president defended himself....

Obama was no stranger to pork as a U.S. citizen. As the junior senator, with only a few years in, he'd already staked a claim to something like 91 million. And had his own earmarks in the Omnibus, which were removed for fear of bad press.

And... John McCain, in all these years has NEVER taken an earmark. That's common knowledge. Where were you during the campaign?

But now we're side-tracked...give me more examples of this arrogant bastard in action. That was your utterly obvious and predictable 1st salvo...keep going. Give us some beef in stead of chicken liver.

And you keep saying its a godawful pile of crap. That's an assertion, not a proof or an argument. More liver.

It's great that you can't at least admit there's some gamesmanship involved by some people. That's not a huge gotcha..it's asking you to be objective and realistic. Care to stop drinking the Kool-Aid?

The reason why they won't drop the bill and restart is because it's republican gamesmanship. If the parts are already agreed to...cut the parts that arent...dont start all the way over. New pork will spring up if you do. That's a fact. If there was a magical cure for pork it'd have been fixed by now.

For people that complain about efficiency, you sure to want to go to a lot of extra work for no payoff. I'm so tempted to make an off-color joke about masturbation

Good grief! This last half of your post is just a weird rant. We've been back and forth again and again, and your entire response could be easily reduced to a resounding "Nuh-uh!"

You say you're a lawyer, and I've already pointed out some of the constitutional concerns about this bill in previous posts, but you've yet to address them.

You say you've watched the healthcare summit twice, and yet somehow you didn't see Obama interrupt Republican senators again and again... starting with Alexander who went first. You didn't notice how he kept referring to them in every sentence by their first names, knowing that they're bound my civility to refer to him as "Mr. President"? You didn't notice his off-the-cuff dismissal of Mitch McConnell when McConnell expressed concern about unequal time? You didn't notice that his refusal to commit to a truly bipartisan effort at a meeting that was ostensibly about 'bipartisan legislation for healthcare'???

You didn't see any arrogance on Obama's part at all? Frankly, I'd say it's time for new glasses! The guy was an arrogant prick the entire meeting.

 

[saveliberty]

But Murf, do you honestly think Obama wanted that Pork in there? You think that if he had the chance to waive a wand...and say...PORK BEGONE!! that he wouldn't do it? Of course he would. And McCain knows that whether you like it or not...things dont get done without it. And I'm sure Obama worked against it, but then there came a point where he couldnt go any further and made a utilitarian decision.

Furthermore, for McCain's comment NOT to be a cheap shot, prove to me that he never made one pork deal himself. Can you? Doubtful. So it was a cheap shot and the president defended himself....

But now we're side-tracked...give me more examples of this arrogant bastard in action. That was your utterly obvious and predictable 1st salvo...keep going. Give us some beef in stead of chicken liver.

And you keep saying its a godawful pile of crap. That's an assertion, not a proof or an argument. More liver.

It's great that you can't at least admit there's some gamesmanship involved by some people. That's not a huge gotcha..it's asking you to be objective and realistic. Care to stop drinking the Kool-Aid?

The reason why they won't drop the bill and restart is because it's republican gamesmanship. If the parts are already agreed to...cut the parts that arent...dont start all the way over. New pork will spring up if you do. That's a fact. If there was a magical cure for pork it'd have been fixed by now.

For people that complain about efficiency, you sure to want to go to a lot of extra work for no payoff. I'm so tempted to make an off-color joke about masturbation

Like so many of the things we have been told by President 0bama, he flip-flops with the winds of power. He was going to end pork, then whenever the bill was important to him, the pork wasn't. He has veto power, he is the leader of his party. The gutless wonder can't stand his ground for a moment.

This is a bad bill for deficit reduction, fixing health care, 2010 elections for Democrats and the American people.

 

[drsmith1072]

There are a lot of things that they don't want to acknowledge. Their spin about reconciliation and the excuses that they gave concerning it's past uses by republicans have been countered and shot down but how many of those posters who tried to spin that have come back and admitted that they were wrong? LOL

Where and when?

When has reconciliation been used as a cram down for any legislation unrelated to current budgetary items?

I haven't seen anyone come even close to answering that one.

A list was provided. It's not my fault you refuse to see it. Maybe you should try opening your eyes?

The bills listed were stand alone bills and not part of a budget as was incorrectly claimed by one of you righties earlier.

 

[Oddball]

Maybe you could've linked back to your list, eh?

Still, the road to reconciliation isn't a straight forward as it may have been portrayed.

If the HoR passes the Senate bill straight out, which ain't a-gonna happen, there's no need for reconciliation because it goes straight to the Prez to get signed or vetoed.

So, it looks like the House is going to have to come up with another bill and hold another vote....And those prospects don't look so hot at this point in time.

 

[drsmith1072]

Isn't it interesting how conservatives were right all along in our claims that Obama had ZERO intention of acting in a bipartisan way on this Healthcare Summit last week and that all he was doing was setting up his Reconciliation scenario.

I think that earns a big fat.... TOLD YA SO!

LOL obama and the democrats finally choosing to go with reconciliation AFTER republicans have consistantly obstructed and filibustered is hardly what any HONEST person would say is proof that obama had zero intention of acting in a bipartisan way ALL ALONG.

These bills were debated and the senate bill even went on the floor and was open for debate. If democrats had no intention of acting in a bipartisan way then why would they do it that way??

 

[Some Guy]

Isn't it interesting how conservatives were right all along in our claims that Obama had ZERO intention of acting in a bipartisan way on this Healthcare Summit last week and that all he was doing was setting up his Reconciliation scenario.

I think that earns a big fat.... TOLD YA SO!

LOL obama and the democrats finally choosing to go with reconciliation AFTER republicans have consistantly obstructed and filibustered is hardly what any HONEST person would say is proof that obama had zero intention of acting in a bipartisan way ALL ALONG.

These bills were debated and the senate bill even went on the floor and was open for debate. If democrats had no intention of acting in a bipartisan way then why would they do it that way??

It's all posturing. He at least has to make it look like he tried to reach out even if he never really intended to entertain any republican ideas, otherwise there would be absolutely no doubt that he doesn't intend on practicing bi-partisanship. Pardon me for not believing a guy who said "I won" in response to republicans proposing their ideas as willing to be bi-partisan.

By the way; the republicans had no way of obstructing anything until they got the 41st seat.

Ask yourself this one question: Do you really think the health care summit would've happened if the democrats still had the 60 votes needed in the Senate to pass their bill?

 

[drsmith1072]

Estimates place the number of people without health insurance in 2010 at 52 million.

More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said they're satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.

And nearly three out of four said they're happy with their overall health care coverage.

Poll: Health care costs too expensive, Americans say - CNN.com

It should be noted that many people choose NOT to carry coverage by personal choice. Those that would like coverage have a substantial number who can't pay for it due to unemployment. Even with this legislation, approxiamtely 20 million will still be without insurance plus those that choose to pay the fine and not have it.

It should be noted that you cherry pick what you want to focus on from your link and only present what suits your needs.

"But satisfaction drops to 52 percent when it comes to the amount people pay for their health care, and more than three out of four are dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in the United States."

That is the very next paragraph from your own link. I wonder why you excluded it?? Hmm?

Because the point was made that 80% of the people were happy with their coverage. I found sources relating directly to that statement. Gee, people want to pay less for insurance. Big surprise there. By the way, just how much are my premiums going down under the 0bama plan? Try zero. So, how many of these people will be happier with 0bama's plan? Zero. Use your brain for something besides this:

LOL So that is your excuse for you cherry picking and choosing to leave out facts that don't suit your SPIN?? LOL

Furthermore, it says they are satisfied with the QUALITY of their care and not necessarily their coverage. But it is nice that you read into things so you can try to support your SPIN. LOL They may like their doctor and have no problems with the care that he provides but what does that have to do with overall coverage??

Can you prove that if passed the obama plan will have zero effect on your premiums?? Can you even prove that you have health insurance and pay for it?? Obviously, if you don't have coverage or don't pay for it yourself then obama's plan won't affect your premiums because you don't pay any premiums. LOL
If not, then why make a claim that you can't substantiate??

So why focus only on yourself??

 

[drsmith1072]

Isn't it interesting how conservatives were right all along in our claims that Obama had ZERO intention of acting in a bipartisan way on this Healthcare Summit last week and that all he was doing was setting up his Reconciliation scenario.

I think that earns a big fat.... TOLD YA SO!

Some of us who support the legislation never thought he was in the first place.

So, what you're telling us essentially is that you have no problem with tyranny over the minority... just so long as you get your way.


You know, a year ago I remember posting on another website that Obama was not an "evil" person. I thought he was just misguided, naive, inexperienced.

I read his books, read his speeches, sifted through countless articles before the election... and even though I KNEW he was twisted in his thinking, an ideologue with narcissistic tendencies, and that he would be a bad president if elected... I wasn't willing to admit that he's an "evil" person. But he is.

He lies. He deceives. And he lacks even the basic sense of decency that would make normal people feel ashamed about it. There's no integrity there. He is NEVER a man of his word. He holds the citizens of this country in contempt.

Why would you, or anyone else, support that?
It's not even going to work. You'll have traded your honor for nothing.

He's bypassing the amendment process. Half the States are already making law that will prevent a central government takeover of healthcare. It's going to be challenged in court and it's going to be overturned. And at that point, you've supported a guy who WILLFULLY signed for unconstitutional laws. He doesn't have the excuse of claiming he didn't know better. He taught Constitutional Law as an associate professor at University of Chicago. He'll have done it deliberately, making him no different than any other common thug who flouts our law.

I honestly don't get why anyone would be okay with that.

WOW so majority rule is equivalent to "tyranny over the minority" now that democrats are the majority?

LOL Tell me, did you have this same position when republicans engaged in "tyranny over the minority" or is your current spin only reserved for a time when demcorats are the majority and republicans are the MINORITY?

Furthermore, NOT ONE OF THE BILLS BEING PROPOSED CONSISTS OF A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE. I am so tired of that LIE being perpetrated by the right. You are trying to create a situation out of thin air and basing your entire BS spin on your work of fiction as you try to attack obama and claim that obama is passing an unconstitutional take over healthcare when that is NOT what is being passed.

I honestly don't know why some posters are just so damn dishonest.

 

[Meister]

It should be noted that you cherry pick what you want to focus on from your link and only present what suits your needs.

"But satisfaction drops to 52 percent when it comes to the amount people pay for their health care, and more than three out of four are dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in the United States."

That is the very next paragraph from your own link. I wonder why you excluded it?? Hmm?

Because the point was made that 80% of the people were happy with their coverage. I found sources relating directly to that statement. Gee, people want to pay less for insurance. Big surprise there. By the way, just how much are my premiums going down under the 0bama plan? Try zero. So, how many of these people will be happier with 0bama's plan? Zero. Use your brain for something besides this:

LOL So that is your excuse for you cherry picking and choosing to leave out facts that don't suit your SPIN?? LOL

Furthermore, it says they are satisfied with the QUALITY of their care and not necessarily their coverage. But it is nice that you read into things so you can try to support your SPIN. LOL They may like their doctor and have no problems with the care that he provides but what does that have to do with overall coverage??

Can you prove that if passed the obama plan will have zero effect on your premiums?? Can you even prove that you have health insurance and pay for it?? Obviously, if you don't have coverage or don't pay for it yourself then obama's plan won't affect your premiums because you don't pay any premiums. LOL
If not, then why make a claim that you can't substantiate??

So why focus only on yourself??

Let the drooling begin.

 

[drsmith1072]

So Bush could have partially privatized Social Security and reformed Medicare and Fannie and Freddie using reconciliation.

Thanks for the heads up, Dems, that's going to come in handy in 2012 when we've won it all back

Well, exactly. They never think about what they're throwing away, that they might regret destroying the filibuster, that they might want it back later. They're like little children who can't seem to predict the consequences of their actions.

LOL Is that what republicans thought when they first threatened the original nuclear/constitutional option??
Were they like little children too or is this just more of the standard hypocrisy and double standards coming from the right??

 

[drsmith1072]

So Bush could have partially privatized Social Security and reformed Medicare and Fannie and Freddie using reconciliation.

Thanks for the heads up, Dems, that's going to come in handy in 2012 when we've won it all back

Yeah...that would have been a great fucking idea Frank. With the Wall Street collapse and the stock market debacle suffered under the last year of Bush, privatizing Social Security would have been just peachy....

When Bush had a majority, he should have just jammed it home through reconciliation

uh In case you missed it, republicans "rammed" a few things through using reconciliation.

 

[drsmith1072]

There are a lot of things that they don't want to acknowledge. Their spin about reconciliation and the excuses that they gave concerning it's past uses by republicans have been countered and shot down but how many of those posters who tried to spin that have come back and admitted that they were wrong? LOL

Where and when?

When has reconciliation been used as a cram down for any legislation unrelated to current budgetary items?

I haven't seen anyone come even close to answering that one.

I'd like to see those answers too!

It has already been provided so it's not my fault that you either ignored it or don't know how to read.

 

[drsmith1072]

Interesting you failed to recognize that Obama only used the hand of compromise when he was losing. As quickly as he could, he reverted back to the hammer.

Obama never had any intention of compromise. From the beginning, with Porkulus, he's behaved in a partisan faction. Not surprising, since he had next to nothing to recommend him in the way of "reaching across the aisle". Nuclear proliferation? How much opposition is there to THAT?

The healthcare summit was an obvious attempt to mislead the public. If his intent had been anything other than Reconciliation all along, logic tells us that he'd have made an honest effort and started from scratch. He didn't. He already knew that the current bills are stuffed up with poison pills that can't be negotiated. Yet he started with the Senate bill and some sleight proposed changes.

It was all kabuki.

LOL porkulus bill that had earmarks for republicans who all voted against it and yet now are trying to take credit for the money that it provided. LOL

You are trying to insert you OPINION as if it were FACT when you fail to provide anything of substance to support said OPINION.

Then you follow that up with more of the same "start over" talking point bs which means that nothing will get done.

Republicans like to talk about inclusion and compromise and yet they are the ones that refuse to compromise and by doing so exclude themselves from any form of debate.

 

[drsmith1072]

The American People will not accept ObamaCare nohow, noway and nowhere! Stop this takeover of 1/6 of our economy; it is only the beginning with these Fascists pigs.

WOW love the talking points from the lemmings. LOL

 

[Big Black Dog]

My ex-wife called this morning and wanted to talk about Reconciliation. After I got finished laughing, I told her to pull my finger and I hung up.

 

[Vanquish]

But Murf, do you honestly think Obama wanted that Pork in there? You think that if he had the chance to waive a wand...and say...PORK BEGONE!! that he wouldn't do it? Of course he would. And McCain knows that whether you like it or not...things dont get done without it. And I'm sure Obama worked against it, but then there came a point where he couldnt go any further and made a utilitarian decision.

Furthermore, for McCain's comment NOT to be a cheap shot, prove to me that he never made one pork deal himself. Can you? Doubtful. So it was a cheap shot and the president defended himself....

Obama was no stranger to pork as a U.S. citizen. As the junior senator, with only a few years in, he'd already staked a claim to something like 91 million. And had his own earmarks in the Omnibus, which were removed for fear of bad press.

And... John McCain, in all these years has NEVER taken an earmark. That's common knowledge. Where were you during the campaign?

But now we're side-tracked...give me more examples of this arrogant bastard in action. That was your utterly obvious and predictable 1st salvo...keep going. Give us some beef in stead of chicken liver.

And you keep saying its a godawful pile of crap. That's an assertion, not a proof or an argument. More liver.

It's great that you can't at least admit there's some gamesmanship involved by some people. That's not a huge gotcha..it's asking you to be objective and realistic. Care to stop drinking the Kool-Aid?

The reason why they won't drop the bill and restart is because it's republican gamesmanship. If the parts are already agreed to...cut the parts that arent...dont start all the way over. New pork will spring up if you do. That's a fact. If there was a magical cure for pork it'd have been fixed by now.

For people that complain about efficiency, you sure to want to go to a lot of extra work for no payoff. I'm so tempted to make an off-color joke about masturbation

Good grief! This last half of your post is just a weird rant. We've been back and forth again and again, and your entire response could be easily reduced to a resounding "Nuh-uh!"

You say you're a lawyer, and I've already pointed out some of the constitutional concerns about this bill in previous posts, but you've yet to address them.

You say you've watched the healthcare summit twice, and yet somehow you didn't see Obama interrupt Republican senators again and again... starting with Alexander who went first. You didn't notice how he kept referring to them in every sentence by their first names, knowing that they're bound my civility to refer to him as "Mr. President"? You didn't notice his off-the-cuff dismissal of Mitch McConnell when McConnell expressed concern about unequal time? You didn't notice that his refusal to commit to a truly bipartisan effort at a meeting that was ostensibly about 'bipartisan legislation for healthcare'???

You didn't see any arrogance on Obama's part at all? Frankly, I'd say it's time for new glasses! The guy was an arrogant prick the entire meeting.

I "say" I'm a lawyer. Yep. I "say" I'm a lawyer. Decide if you want to call me out on it or not. Let's go ahead and get past that. If you like you can pm me and I'll give you my work number. Or I can just post you to our firm's website.

Earmarks, let's say for argument's sake that what you say about McCain is true, it's certainly not true for the entire Republican party. Furthermore you keep dancing around and avoiding the meat of my posts. Do you think Obama, if given a choice, would rather have done it without earmarks or not? Answer that. Don't change the subject. Just answer it. It's not that hard.

Let's talk about your so-called arrogance for a second. Are you REALLY going to hang your hat on the way he used their names?
If you want to take his folksy, informal style...a style that goes along with the purpose of trying to lay down defenses and get something accomplished...and turn it into arrogance, you really need more to go on there. Furthermore, if they wanted to call him Barack, did he say they couldnt? I certainly didnt hear him say that. The first time BO used someone's first name...i'd think that informally means that they can use his first name. That was their choice.

This last half of your post is just a weird rant. We've been back and forth again and again, and your entire response could be easily reduced to a resounding "Nuh-uh!"

I'm reading your post and thinking the exact same thing. You post "they used Mr. president" and "he cut one guy off" and then you categorize the entire event. That's it??? That's all you got?

I continually ask you to find some middle ground... and still you can't at least admit there's some gamesmanship involved by some conservatives. That's a no-brainer if you're really interested in being thought to be objective and well-reasoned.

Constitutional concerns...hmmm...well we can have the same old debates about the General Welfare clause and the Commerce Clause on whether a bill like this is constitutional if you want. You'll never agree...just like no one on this board ever submits to anyone about anything.

But you're a partisan hack who can't even admit that starting over could be, by some, a delay/kill tactic. I wouldn't expect less.

 

[drsmith1072]

LOL I just love how all of the republicans who failed to see the self implosion of their own party and the economic downturn that was spawned by their own golden boy and his policies are now trying to predict what will happen after the bills get passed. LOL

Forgive me if I don't take your OPINIONS seriously.