Republicans shut 'er down, boys!

[Sallow]

It was rushed through. The Democrats lost their Super Majority in the Senate when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's vacated seat. The Democrats at that point knew they couldn't get a new version of ObamaCare passed in the Senate and were forced to go with the Senate version of the bill that had been previously passed even though Democrats knew it was terribly written legislation. Perhaps you've forgotten the way the political winds were blowing at that time? Moderate Democrats around the country started having second thoughts about voting for ObamaCare following the shocking loss to the GOP in Massachusetts. Pelosi, Reid and President Obama took what they could get and went with the badly written Senate bill. In the process they hung out to dry dozens of moderate Democrats that were brow beaten into voting for legislation that their constituents didn't want. Those moderate Democrats were subsequently SLAUGHTERED in the 2010 mid-terms.

What?? Now you're changing your story?? I thought Democrats rushed the bill because Republicans won the 2010 election???

That nonsense is shown to be absurd so now you change your position??

At any rate, who knows what you're talking about now? ACA passed in the House 4 months before Brown became a Senator. The bill then moved on to the Senate where it passed on Christmas Eve, 2009. And that was after a year of debate. There's no way you can call that rushed unless your spouting rightwing talking points.

Perhaps now would be an opportunity for you to change your position again and hunt for yet a third excuse for how Democrats "rushed" to pass a bill they debated for a year?

Brown was elected on Jan. 19th. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21st. Democrats in the House would have liked to have passed their own version of the ACA but they understood that time was rapidly running out on their ability to do so. That understanding came from the politically shocking election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. You seem to have forgotten the response to THAT election by moderates in the Democratic Party. There was indeed a "rush" to get something passed before Pelosi, Reid and Obama lost votes on ObamaCare. The writing was already on the wall that voting for ObamaCare was going to be harmful to the chances of Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. If a Republican could win in Massachusetts...arguably the most liberal State in the nation then it was obvious that moderate Democrats voting for an unpopular health care reform bill was not going to be the ticket to getting reelected. The "rush" was to get something through before support crumbled away.

As for your claim that ObamaCare was "debated" for a year before being passed? It was more like Pelosi and Reid spent a year doing back room deals to buy the votes they needed to keep the magical 60 number in the Senate so the GOP couldn't filibuster the ACA. I suppose if you want to count THAT as "debate" you might be right.

You just got your ass kicked here. And shown to be ignorant of the process.

So you went with conservative debating tactic number 132, "Move the goalposts".

Good one.

 

[Sallow]

That propaganda put out by the White House that they were somehow crafting a "bi-partisan" bill because they included some ideas floated by Republicans in years past ignores the fact that ObamaCare was written behind closed doors by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with zero input from GOP leaders. Tell me the names of the Republicans who worked in concert with either Pelosi or Reid in the writing of the Affordable Care Act.

Sure, I'd be happy to ...

• Alexander (R-TN)

• Burr (R-NC)

• Coburn (R-OK)

• Enzi (R-WY)

• Gregg (R-NH)

• Hatch (R-UT)

• Isakson (R-GA)

• McCain (R-AZ)

• Murkowski (R-AK)

• Roberts (R-KS)

... those are among the Republicans who submitted hundreds of amendments, of which, 161 were passed.

So who knows why you think Republicans had "zero input" when they submitted hundreds of amendments??



. . . next rightwing talking point . . .

Once again you failed to see the forest for the trees, Faun...

ObamaCare was written solely by Pelosi and Reid behind closed doors without any input from Republicans at all. When their versions of ObamaCare were subsequently brought to the floors of the Senate and the House for debate Republicans attempted to hold up the process by attaching hundreds of amendments to both bills. What you call Republican "input" was in reality a last ditch effort to keep ObamaCare from being implemented at all...a stall tactic to when Brown would take his seat and when the American voters would get a chance to voice their opinions through the 2010 mid-terms. Many of the things you claim to be Republican amendments were nothing more than slight changes to the wording of the bills...changes designed solely to hold up the process. Or don't you remember Harry Reid whining loudly about just that?

The whole fucking thing was a conservative idea!

Unbelievable.

I guess this is what you call, "Bitterly Clinging."

 

[Faun]

It was rushed through. The Democrats lost their Super Majority in the Senate when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's vacated seat. The Democrats at that point knew they couldn't get a new version of ObamaCare passed in the Senate and were forced to go with the Senate version of the bill that had been previously passed even though Democrats knew it was terribly written legislation. Perhaps you've forgotten the way the political winds were blowing at that time? Moderate Democrats around the country started having second thoughts about voting for ObamaCare following the shocking loss to the GOP in Massachusetts. Pelosi, Reid and President Obama took what they could get and went with the badly written Senate bill. In the process they hung out to dry dozens of moderate Democrats that were brow beaten into voting for legislation that their constituents didn't want. Those moderate Democrats were subsequently SLAUGHTERED in the 2010 mid-terms.

What?? Now you're changing your story?? I thought Democrats rushed the bill because Republicans won the 2010 election???

That nonsense is shown to be absurd so now you change your position??

At any rate, who knows what you're talking about now? ACA passed in the House 4 months before Brown became a Senator. The bill then moved on to the Senate where it passed on Christmas Eve, 2009. And that was after a year of debate. There's no way you can call that rushed unless your spouting rightwing talking points.

Perhaps now would be an opportunity for you to change your position again and hunt for yet a third excuse for how Democrats "rushed" to pass a bill they debated for a year?

Brown was elected on Jan. 19th. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21st. Democrats in the House would have liked to have passed their own version of the ACA but they understood that time was rapidly running out on their ability to do so. That understanding came from the politically shocking election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. You seem to have forgotten the response to THAT election by moderates in the Democratic Party. There was indeed a "rush" to get something passed before Pelosi, Reid and Obama lost votes on ObamaCare. The writing was already on the wall that voting for ObamaCare was going to be harmful to the chances of Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. If a Republican could win in Massachusetts...arguably the most liberal State in the nation then it was obvious that moderate Democrats voting for an unpopular health care reform bill was not going to be the ticket to getting reelected. The "rush" was to get something through before support crumbled away.

As for your claim that ObamaCare was "debated" for a year before being passed? It was more like Pelosi and Reid spent a year doing back room deals to buy the votes they needed to keep the magical 60 number in the Senate so the GOP couldn't filibuster the ACA. I suppose if you want to count THAT as "debate" you might be right.

The bill already passed in the House in October, 2009. It passed in the Senate in December, 2009. Both before Scott Brown was elected. They did not rush it. They did not exclude Republicans who offered hundreds of amendments, of which 161 were put into the bill. The vote you're talking about in March, 2010, was a vote to reconcile the bill so the president could sign it into law -- that was more than 5 months after the House had already passed it. Republicans are trying to say that was rushed -- that was a year later. How the hell is a year of debate, which included 161 Amendments from Republicans, "rushed?"

It wasn't. That's just ludicrous on its face. If they had just debated it for a month and then passed it, you would have a point. But there's no way you can describe a bill that took a year to pass, "rushed."

 

[Faun]

That propaganda put out by the White House that they were somehow crafting a "bi-partisan" bill because they included some ideas floated by Republicans in years past ignores the fact that ObamaCare was written behind closed doors by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with zero input from GOP leaders. Tell me the names of the Republicans who worked in concert with either Pelosi or Reid in the writing of the Affordable Care Act.

Sure, I'd be happy to ...

• Alexander (R-TN)

• Burr (R-NC)

• Coburn (R-OK)

• Enzi (R-WY)

• Gregg (R-NH)

• Hatch (R-UT)

• Isakson (R-GA)

• McCain (R-AZ)

• Murkowski (R-AK)

• Roberts (R-KS)

... those are among the Republicans who submitted hundreds of amendments, of which, 161 were passed.

So who knows why you think Republicans had "zero input" when they submitted hundreds of amendments??



. . . next rightwing talking point . . .

Once again you failed to see the forest for the trees, Faun...

ObamaCare was written solely by Pelosi and Reid behind closed doors without any input from Republicans at all. When their versions of ObamaCare were subsequently brought to the floors of the Senate and the House for debate Republicans attempted to hold up the process by attaching hundreds of amendments to both bills. What you call Republican "input" was in reality a last ditch effort to keep ObamaCare from being implemented at all...a stall tactic to when Brown would take his seat and when the American voters would get a chance to voice their opinions through the 2010 mid-terms. Many of the things you claim to be Republican amendments were nothing more than slight changes to the wording of the bills...changes designed solely to hold up the process. Or don't you remember Harry Reid whining loudly about just that?

This is yet another fabrication of yours, just like your fabrication that the bill was passed after the 2010 election when it was actually passed 7 months before it. Most of their amendments were not brought to the "floors of the Senate and the House." Amendments were introduced while the bill was in committee during a month long mark-up period. And despite your fabrication that it was a ploy by Republicans to stall until Brown would be seated is completely ludicrous. The amendments were introduced in June-July, 2009 -- Scott Brown didn't take his seat until February, 2010. Not does your fallacious claim that it was a stall tactic until Brown could be seated not match up with the dates (it was 6 months before Brown's election), your claim doesn't even match up with Republicans', who said they introduced so many amendments because since they had been largely shut out of the drafting the bill, their input was limited to amending it.

Time for you to shift your position again ... this one failed you too.

 

[RKMBrown]

What?? Now you're changing your story?? I thought Democrats rushed the bill because Republicans won the 2010 election???

That nonsense is shown to be absurd so now you change your position??

At any rate, who knows what you're talking about now? ACA passed in the House 4 months before Brown became a Senator. The bill then moved on to the Senate where it passed on Christmas Eve, 2009. And that was after a year of debate. There's no way you can call that rushed unless your spouting rightwing talking points.

Perhaps now would be an opportunity for you to change your position again and hunt for yet a third excuse for how Democrats "rushed" to pass a bill they debated for a year?

Brown was elected on Jan. 19th. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21st. Democrats in the House would have liked to have passed their own version of the ACA but they understood that time was rapidly running out on their ability to do so. That understanding came from the politically shocking election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. You seem to have forgotten the response to THAT election by moderates in the Democratic Party. There was indeed a "rush" to get something passed before Pelosi, Reid and Obama lost votes on ObamaCare. The writing was already on the wall that voting for ObamaCare was going to be harmful to the chances of Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. If a Republican could win in Massachusetts...arguably the most liberal State in the nation then it was obvious that moderate Democrats voting for an unpopular health care reform bill was not going to be the ticket to getting reelected. The "rush" was to get something through before support crumbled away.

As for your claim that ObamaCare was "debated" for a year before being passed? It was more like Pelosi and Reid spent a year doing back room deals to buy the votes they needed to keep the magical 60 number in the Senate so the GOP couldn't filibuster the ACA. I suppose if you want to count THAT as "debate" you might be right.

You just got your ass kicked here. And shown to be ignorant of the process.

So you went with conservative debating tactic number 132, "Move the goalposts".

Good one.

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

 

[Faun]

Brown was elected on Jan. 19th. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21st. Democrats in the House would have liked to have passed their own version of the ACA but they understood that time was rapidly running out on their ability to do so. That understanding came from the politically shocking election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. You seem to have forgotten the response to THAT election by moderates in the Democratic Party. There was indeed a "rush" to get something passed before Pelosi, Reid and Obama lost votes on ObamaCare. The writing was already on the wall that voting for ObamaCare was going to be harmful to the chances of Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. If a Republican could win in Massachusetts...arguably the most liberal State in the nation then it was obvious that moderate Democrats voting for an unpopular health care reform bill was not going to be the ticket to getting reelected. The "rush" was to get something through before support crumbled away.

As for your claim that ObamaCare was "debated" for a year before being passed? It was more like Pelosi and Reid spent a year doing back room deals to buy the votes they needed to keep the magical 60 number in the Senate so the GOP couldn't filibuster the ACA. I suppose if you want to count THAT as "debate" you might be right.

You just got your ass kicked here. And shown to be ignorant of the process.

So you went with conservative debating tactic number 132, "Move the goalposts".

Good one.

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

You must be blind. He changed his entire argument. He went from ... Democrats rushed it through because they lost the 2010 election, to -- Democrats rushed it through because Brown got elected.

 

[RKMBrown]

You just got your ass kicked here. And shown to be ignorant of the process.

So you went with conservative debating tactic number 132, "Move the goalposts".

Good one.

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

You must be blind. He changed his entire argument. He went from ... Democrats rushed it through because they lost the 2010 election, to -- Democrats rushed it through because Brown got elected.

Wrong. Brown was a part of the 2010 election cycle.

 

[edthecynic]

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

You must be blind. He changed his entire argument. He went from ... Democrats rushed it through because they lost the 2010 election, to -- Democrats rushed it through because Brown got elected.

Wrong. Brown was a part of the 2010 election cycle.

Bullshit!
Brown won a SPECIAL ELECTION for the remainder of Kennedy's term over 9 months BEFORE the 2010 elections.

 

[Sallow]

What?? Now you're changing your story?? I thought Democrats rushed the bill because Republicans won the 2010 election???

That nonsense is shown to be absurd so now you change your position??

At any rate, who knows what you're talking about now? ACA passed in the House 4 months before Brown became a Senator. The bill then moved on to the Senate where it passed on Christmas Eve, 2009. And that was after a year of debate. There's no way you can call that rushed unless your spouting rightwing talking points.

Perhaps now would be an opportunity for you to change your position again and hunt for yet a third excuse for how Democrats "rushed" to pass a bill they debated for a year?

Brown was elected on Jan. 19th. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21st. Democrats in the House would have liked to have passed their own version of the ACA but they understood that time was rapidly running out on their ability to do so. That understanding came from the politically shocking election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. You seem to have forgotten the response to THAT election by moderates in the Democratic Party. There was indeed a "rush" to get something passed before Pelosi, Reid and Obama lost votes on ObamaCare. The writing was already on the wall that voting for ObamaCare was going to be harmful to the chances of Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. If a Republican could win in Massachusetts...arguably the most liberal State in the nation then it was obvious that moderate Democrats voting for an unpopular health care reform bill was not going to be the ticket to getting reelected. The "rush" was to get something through before support crumbled away.

As for your claim that ObamaCare was "debated" for a year before being passed? It was more like Pelosi and Reid spent a year doing back room deals to buy the votes they needed to keep the magical 60 number in the Senate so the GOP couldn't filibuster the ACA. I suppose if you want to count THAT as "debate" you might be right.

The bill already passed in the House in October, 2009. It passed in the Senate in December, 2009. Both before Scott Brown was elected. They did not rush it. They did not exclude Republicans who offered hundreds of amendments, of which 161 were put into the bill. The vote you're talking about in March, 2010, was a vote to reconcile the bill so the president could sign it into law -- that was more than 5 months after the House had already passed it. Republicans are trying to say that was rushed -- that was a year later. How the hell is a year of debate, which included 161 Amendments from Republicans, "rushed?"

It wasn't. That's just ludicrous on its face. If they had just debated it for a month and then passed it, you would have a point. But there's no way you can describe a bill that took a year to pass, "rushed."

And it's not just one year..it's more like 100 years.

This has been an ongoing battle for close to a century.

 

[bodecea]

Remember back when they were complaining about White House tours!

GAME OVER
Shutdown clock runs out, no winner

After stealthy rounds of ping pong over tying the budget to Obamacare, the government is officially shut down. FULL STORY

No deal, no U.S. parks


Never mind that visit to the Statue of Liberty in New York City. Forget visiting Independence Hall in Philadelphia. That hike at Yellowstone National Park? Not happening. Why? Ask Congress. FULL STORY
CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News

They are really putting their Grover Norquist Mission Statement to the test!

My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size... - Grover Norquist at BrainyQuote

Just completely cancelled the Miramar Airshow this weekend and all the military commissaries are closed in San Diego. Oh well, need to cut our expenses anyways.

 

[Sallow]

Brown was elected on Jan. 19th. The House passed the Senate bill on March 21st. Democrats in the House would have liked to have passed their own version of the ACA but they understood that time was rapidly running out on their ability to do so. That understanding came from the politically shocking election of Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat. You seem to have forgotten the response to THAT election by moderates in the Democratic Party. There was indeed a "rush" to get something passed before Pelosi, Reid and Obama lost votes on ObamaCare. The writing was already on the wall that voting for ObamaCare was going to be harmful to the chances of Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms. If a Republican could win in Massachusetts...arguably the most liberal State in the nation then it was obvious that moderate Democrats voting for an unpopular health care reform bill was not going to be the ticket to getting reelected. The "rush" was to get something through before support crumbled away.

As for your claim that ObamaCare was "debated" for a year before being passed? It was more like Pelosi and Reid spent a year doing back room deals to buy the votes they needed to keep the magical 60 number in the Senate so the GOP couldn't filibuster the ACA. I suppose if you want to count THAT as "debate" you might be right.

You just got your ass kicked here. And shown to be ignorant of the process.

So you went with conservative debating tactic number 132, "Move the goalposts".

Good one.

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

Naw you Fascists are just doing what you always do.

It's a propaganda thing.

 

[bodecea]

Well no.

The Bills were partially shutting down the government.

Democrats want to keep it open.

Come on man..man up.

This is Grover Norquist stuff in action.

This baby's going to the bathtub!

The Democrats and Obama have been salivating over this, remembering how the public blamed the GOP back in 95. This isn't '95 though and the Dems will find themselves getting reamed.

Are you saying that the GOP fell right into their trap?

If that's true, they aren't very bright, are they?

 

[RKMBrown]

You must be blind. He changed his entire argument. He went from ... Democrats rushed it through because they lost the 2010 election, to -- Democrats rushed it through because Brown got elected.

Wrong. Brown was a part of the 2010 election cycle.

Bullshit!
Brown won a SPECIAL ELECTION for the remainder of Kennedy's term over 9 months BEFORE the 2010 elections.

Liar or ignorant? Hello, McFly... the election cycle includes the period of time prior to the election when the candidates are being vetted and debating for the election. Elections for congress are debated for months before then actual election, and the incoming elected officials does not happen for months after the actual election. Brown came in between these activities, and the democrats freaked out started buying votes to get it done before Brown's and the other votes counted.

 

[RKMBrown]

You just got your ass kicked here. And shown to be ignorant of the process.

So you went with conservative debating tactic number 132, "Move the goalposts".

Good one.

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

Naw you Fascists are just doing what you always do.

It's a propaganda thing.

I'm not a facist, i'm the opposite, I'm a classical libertarian/consitutionial conservative. Socialists are the facists, just as were the National Socialist Party of Germany.

 

[edthecynic]

Wrong. Brown was a part of the 2010 election cycle.

Bullshit!
Brown won a SPECIAL ELECTION for the remainder of Kennedy's term over 9 months BEFORE the 2010 elections.

Liar or ignorant? Hello, McFly... the election cycle includes the period of time prior to the election when the candidates are being vetted and debating for the election. Elections for congress are debated for months before then actual election, and the incoming elected officials does not happen for months after the actual election. Brown came in between these activities, and the democrats freaked out started buying votes to get it done before Brown's and the other votes counted.

Brown's election took place Jan 19, 2010 so by your perverted "logic" the vetting took place in 2009.

 

[edthecynic]

The goal posts are not moving. You socialists are running the wrong way.

Naw you Fascists are just doing what you always do.

It's a propaganda thing.

I'm not a facist, i'm the opposite, I'm a classical libertarian/consitutionial conservative. Socialists are the facists, just as were the National Socialist Party of Germany.

No, you are a member of the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood, a NATIONALIST like your fellow NATIONAL Socialist Party travelers.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit!
Brown won a SPECIAL ELECTION for the remainder of Kennedy's term over 9 months BEFORE the 2010 elections.

Liar or ignorant? Hello, McFly... the election cycle includes the period of time prior to the election when the candidates are being vetted and debating for the election. Elections for congress are debated for months before then actual election, and the incoming elected officials does not happen for months after the actual election. Brown came in between these activities, and the democrats freaked out started buying votes to get it done before Brown's and the other votes counted.

Brown's election took place Jan 19, 2010 so by your perverted "logic" the vetting took place in 2009.

Gonna guess you don't understand the concept of "and." Scott Brown was the 41st republican vote in the Senate. However, other republicans were literally bought by the democrats to overcome the filibuster in the senate and get it through. Obama care was signed in a rush literally just before the newly elected representatives took office.

 

[birddog]

Being a Dumbass is part of the requirement to be a lefty/progressive/liberal, or whatever you want to call the scum!

 

[Oldstyle]

That propaganda put out by the White House that they were somehow crafting a "bi-partisan" bill because they included some ideas floated by Republicans in years past ignores the fact that ObamaCare was written behind closed doors by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with zero input from GOP leaders. Tell me the names of the Republicans who worked in concert with either Pelosi or Reid in the writing of the Affordable Care Act.

Sure, I'd be happy to ...

• Alexander (R-TN)

• Burr (R-NC)

• Coburn (R-OK)

• Enzi (R-WY)

• Gregg (R-NH)

• Hatch (R-UT)

• Isakson (R-GA)

• McCain (R-AZ)

• Murkowski (R-AK)

• Roberts (R-KS)

... those are among the Republicans who submitted hundreds of amendments, of which, 161 were passed.

So who knows why you think Republicans had "zero input" when they submitted hundreds of amendments??



. . . next rightwing talking point . . .

You missed Grassely and Snowe, who along with Enzi were part of the "gang of six." The GOP pretended to work with the Dems getting many changes they asked for and they STILL refused to vote for the bill, and then the lying GOP said they didn't vote for the bill because they were shut out of the process.

That was my point Faun and Sallow can't seem to grasp...the GOP did indeed ask for a multitude of "changes" to the ACA through hundreds of amendments to the legislation and then refuse to vote for the bill. They did so in large part because they wanted to stop it's passage and make Democrats vote for or against embarrassing amendments like the Vitter Amendment that required Congress and it's staff to use the health care exchanges. Or have you folks forgotten that Reid ended up using Reconciliation to quash those attempts and get a final bill to Obama's desk to be signed?

 

[edthecynic]

Sure, I'd be happy to ...

• Alexander (R-TN)

• Burr (R-NC)

• Coburn (R-OK)

• Enzi (R-WY)

• Gregg (R-NH)

• Hatch (R-UT)

• Isakson (R-GA)

• McCain (R-AZ)

• Murkowski (R-AK)

• Roberts (R-KS)

... those are among the Republicans who submitted hundreds of amendments, of which, 161 were passed.

So who knows why you think Republicans had "zero input" when they submitted hundreds of amendments??



. . . next rightwing talking point . . .

You missed Grassely and Snowe, who along with Enzi were part of the "gang of six." The GOP pretended to work with the Dems getting many changes they asked for and they STILL refused to vote for the bill, and then the lying GOP said they didn't vote for the bill because they were shut out of the process.

That was my point Faun and Sallow can't seem to grasp...the GOP did indeed ask for a multitude of "changes" to the ACA through hundreds of amendments to the legislation and then refuse to vote for the bill. They did so in large part because they wanted to stop it's passage and make Democrats vote for or against embarrassing amendments like the Vitter Amendment that required Congress and it's staff to use the health care exchanges. Or have you folks forgotten that Reid ended up using Reconciliation to quash those attempts and get a final bill to Obama's desk to be signed?

Actually, that was the Grassely amendment, and it passed.