Well, we finally got unanimity from Republicans.
This is wholly a 100% Democrat bill.
And even if they don't, when the House and Senate try to mesh it, it's a damn good chance that whatever it was that got those few needed will be lost and they'll vote against it's final version.
I'm under the impression that the post reconciliation bill only needs 51 votes.
And no offense to our esteemed Nebraskan here, and any Louisianans who may be here, but are these special deals made to senators even constitutional? Why should the rest of us in the country pay to let Nebraskans have medicaid at a far lower cost in perpetuity? The whole thing stinks on ice.
And no offense to our esteemed Nebraskan here, and any Louisianans who may be here, but are these special deals made to senators even constitutional? Why should the rest of us in the country pay to let Nebraskans have medicaid at a far lower cost in perpetuity? The whole thing stinks on ice.
And no offense to our esteemed Nebraskan here, and any Louisianans who may be here, but are these special deals made to senators even constitutional? Why should the rest of us in the country pay to let Nebraskans have medicaid at a far lower cost in perpetuity? The whole thing stinks on ice.
This isn't the final Senate vote folks. There is still 2 more votes that has to be done. Republicans are going to be hammering away at this over the next couple of days trying to get someone to flip.This is the biggest fiasco to ever come out of DC. As for me- I am getting the word out to everyone that I know. We THE PEOPLE have to keep the heat on! There is hope for us yet!!!!!!!!
And even if they don't, when the House and Senate try to mesh it, it's a damn good chance that whatever it was that got those few needed will be lost and they'll vote against it's final version.
Absolutely...this is a form of bribery..I'm not sure it's even legal...
On the MSNBC site article on this, there are over 2,000 comments. Maybe 2 are in support. The rest are HOWLING.
that says a lot... 'especially on MSNBC
Please read the rules for the Breaking News forum before posting a thread. Excerpted articles should be no longer than three to five paragraphs -- Chris
« Last Edit: Today at 08:54:30 am by Chris »
bleh....on issues of this magnitude. The entire, unedited article should be disseminated to all.
That's why we ask you provide a link to the rest of the story.
That way our members can click it to continue reading.
*tips hat* just a bit of advice from your friendly neighborhood Moderator.
It has to be that way; otherwise, it gives the liberal oppressors grounds to sue us for copyright infringement - Freerepublic just settled a lawsuit against them by, inter alia, WaPo and AP - even just the costs of defending such a suit would in all likelihood kill off the Conservative Cave.
have fun then. I'm not playing that bull shit game
mod's your welcome to kill off my membership, I'm going back to the gulch.
:whatever:
have fun then. I'm not playing that bull shit game
mod's your welcome to kill off my membership, I'm going back to the gulch.
Following copyright law is a game? Who knew? :whatever:
have fun then. I'm not playing that bull shit game
mod's your welcome to kill off my membership, I'm going back to the gulch.
I think he was told nicely to just post an excerpt followed by a link....apparently, that correction alone got his panties all twisted....sigh...what happened to the manly men?? :(
(http://www.showcaseyouth.com/Oh%20the%20Drama%203.jpg)
I think he was told nicely to just post an excerpt followed by a link....apparently, that correction alone got his panties all twisted....sigh...what happened to the manly men?? :(
I had to turn off my t.v. today - just can't take listening ANYMORE. However, right before I did tune out, I heard "they" may pass the final bill on Christmas Eve night!!! Unbelievable...
*ahem* Some of us are still around. :-)
I called my do-nothing WI senators and asked what they got for their vote. It amounted to a bunch of gibberish which I asked for the English translation. It's one thing to be a prostitute and quite another to give the milk away for free.
I called my do-nothing WI senators and asked what they got for their vote. It amounted to a bunch of gibberish which I asked for the English translation. It's one thing to be a prostitute and quite another to give the milk away for free.
Drama - gotta love it!
Back on Topic: Just my humble reaction on the latest developing HC bill vote: :puke:
I had to turn off my t.v. today - just can't take listening ANYMORE. However, right before I did tune out, I heard "they" may pass the final bill on Christmas Eve night!!! Unbelievable...
I am here! (http://209.85.48.11/13592/198/emo/flirtysmile1.gif)
Hopes that no one will think much about it over the long weekend.
What does that tell everyone about this ****ing (please excuse the expletive) thing that it all as to be passed in the middle of a night or on Christmas eve?
If you are proud of this dems then stand up and say so. :censored:
The democrats ARE everything they wrongly accused Bush of being.
I am here! (http://209.85.48.11/13592/198/emo/flirtysmile1.gif)
I just spent a depressing 15 minutes talking to an acquaintance who, it turns out, is a raving Democrat and thinks today's vote was the cat's meow. It was all I could do to keep a civil tongue in my head (I did, thankfully, as she is the mother of one of the girls in my daughter's kindergarten class).
I called my do-nothing WI senators and asked what they got for their vote. It amounted to a bunch of gibberish which I asked for the English translation. It's one thing to be a prostitute and quite another to give the milk away for free.
Oceander - thank God she couldn't read your mind during that very long 15 minutes. People JUST DON'T GET IT, do they!!??!!
LMAO!! Carl, you go boy...
:rotf:
omg..that smiley is hilarous! :lmao:
They actually deigned to speak with you, a lowly constituent? I'm jealous, all I get are cheezy voicemail menus and messages that are never, ever returned.I called the local offices. My representative's clone offered to connect me directly to DC but they were having a snow day.
have fun then. I'm not playing that bull shit game
mod's your welcome to kill off my membership, I'm going back to the gulch.
Just a side thought.
There maybe should be a locked welcome...these are the rulz thread that any sign up is directed to.
Regarding sites that can`t be posted in whole from or linked to.
I know there is a Terms of Service thing but few read those when they register.
Just a suggestion and it could be one that only an admin could add too as need arose.
I didn`t and don`t like the way newbies are treated at FR but that is the result of the growing pains.
Perhaps something similar would be helpful here.
You mean this ---> Attention ALL Members!!! Breaking New Forum Rules! (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,9640.0.html) at the top of each forum including this one? The one that says 'a three- to five- paragraph excerpt of the article being linked to'? The one that doesn't say copy the whole damned thing like you own it because you don't? That one?
I'm not giving you a hard time, I'm just pointing out that the rules are already there in plain sight.
You mean this ---> Attention ALL Members!!! Breaking New Forum Rules! (http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,9640.0.html) at the top of each forum including this one? The one that says 'a three- to five- paragraph excerpt of the article being linked to'? The one that doesn't say copy the whole damned thing like you own it because you don't? That one?
I'm not giving you a hard time, I'm just pointing out that the rules are already there in plain sight.
Courtesy of the Stepford Senators; 60 members of Congress who, between the lot, cannot muster even a single independent thought:(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/GIF_Animations/stepford-senators.gif)
Well, this about makes your head spin...yowza Watching all those flipping heads.
They all have been bought off and we will pay for it. :(
I was just listening to Rush-- apparently- they put in clauses that say that the bill or parts of it can never be repealed. I do not have the time to google it. I trust what he said- Is this Constitutional? DUH!!!!! :banghead:
I don't think that's possible. Legislation can be reversed or repealed in a number of ways.
I pray your right on this. What a mess!!!!!
Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.
"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection," the section says.
DeMint said he found that "particularly troubling."
"We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law," DeMint said. "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional."
The overall section the senator referred to applied to the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
But a senior Reid aide noted that the language restricting the repeal of the measure only applied to one subsection -- a subsection dealing with the manner in which the proposal for the board is introduced and considered in Congress. The aide said the language DeMint found "troubling" did not apply to board or its duties as a whole.
Plus the aide noted that the language can be waived by a 60-vote majority in the Senate.
"It's really a sign of desperation," the aide said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."
and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.
If Demint isn't smart enough to know if it's constitutional or not, he shouldn't fawking be in congress. :whatever:
That is neither true, nor fair. All that's really required of a member of Congress is that he or she make a conscientious, good faith effort to respect the limitations imposed by the Constitution - that, in a nutshell, is what differentiates good legislators and members of Congress such as Demint, from the a-hole liberals/marxists aka the Democrats, who are so effing arrogant now that they don't even make the slightest pretense toward caring about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say.All that's really required of a member of Congress is that he or she make a conscientious, good faith effort to respect the limitations imposed by the Constitution
Well, if it is a rules change, it needs 67 to make the change, no? When push comes to shove when repealing it, the question, "Did this rule get the necessary 67 votes" and the answer is no means the rule is dead.
All that's really required of a member of Congress is that he or she make a conscientious, good faith effort to respect the limitations imposed by the Constitution
This whole thing went down to who got bribed the most. How can any American watch this seditious,debauchery and not start screaming in the streets is beyond me???????
the a-hole liberals/marxists aka the Democrats, who are so effing arrogant now that they don't even make the slightest pretense toward caring about what the Constitution says, or doesn't say
Nope... If today it takes 51 votes, then it takes 51 votes. If you put a bill forth that says it take 67 votes from now on, it still only takes 51 votes to pass that.
It's actually quite a brilliant move.
Not necessarily; that's a gambit that has more holes than the string-theorist's 21-d space has.
I'm listening...
Simply change the rules later on by adding a proviso that says, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no bill, amendment, or other motion in the Senate shall require anything other than a simple majority of senators voting "aye" to pass. The later in time controls the earlier in time, and under the doctrine of implicit repeal, that provision would knock out the earlier that required a super-majority.
I admit that I'm not following. Will have to read a few more times. Linearly doesn't make sense to me.
Well, if it is a rules change, it needs 67 to make the change, no? When push comes to shove when repealing it, the question, "Did this rule get the necessary 67 votes" and the answer is no means the rule is dead.
I have a better idea. Screw changing it, just throw the whole piece of shit out.:hyper: :rotf: :cheersmate: