HC debate closed, 60-40 vote

[dutch508]

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.

what a ****ing whiny pussie. Why is it all the retards wash up in here thinking their shit don't stink?

Hey, DUmpshit. Try thinking before you speak, 'tho it may well be you can't do two things at the same time.


dumbass.

[Chris]

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! 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.

[Carl]

You mean this ---> Attention ALL Members!!!  Breaking New Forum Rules! 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.

I know Chris but it requires someone to electively click on that.
Guess what I am suggesting is a precursor to registering and then a follow up thread that anyone can be politely directed to.

[rich_t]

You mean this ---> Attention ALL Members!!!  Breaking New Forum Rules! 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.

Do you mean to tell me that folks are actually expected to read those things?

Who knew?

 

[Oceander]

Courtesy of the Stepford Senators; 60 members of Congress who, between the lot, cannot muster even a single independent thought:

[Ladywinter]

Courtesy of the Stepford Senators; 60 members of Congress who, between the lot, cannot muster even a single independent thought:

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.

[Oceander]

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.

Yeah, I probably should slow it down some; still, that's about as fast as they've been trying to fist-fcuk America with Obamacare.

[lovemyusadoyou]

 i was watching the movie, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington',  and WOW  it depicted what is presently going on  in Washington.   The story about  a junior Senator, who tried to get a  bill passed,  but it was in conflict with other senators  who had  a hidden  agenda to block the bill.  A person behind the scenes pulling the strings of  the Senators who was fighting the junior Senator  bill, called all the newspaper and tried to destroy this young Senator with lies and scare tactic.   I recommend  that  my Consertiveti friends watch this movie, which will give you all an insight of what is presently going on in Washington.

[Patriot Lady]

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!!!!!

[Ralph Wiggum]

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!!!!!

I don't think that's possible.  Legislation can be reversed or repealed in a number of ways.

[Ladywinter]

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!!!!!

[Ralph Wiggum]

I pray your right on this.  What a mess!!!!!

I get Rush on tape delay, and just heard his opening monologue.  This sounds unconstitutional as written.

[Patriot Lady]

I am not getting anything on line-- BUT- Rush had the Senators speaking in defense of that measure. It will be on FOx tonight-- I hope

[debk]

Fox just announced that Reid has moved the vote in the Senate from Christmas Eve evening to 8am on Christmas Eve ....

[Patriot Lady]

Here it is-- the part that Rush was talking about is at the end
Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges

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/

[bkg]

If Demint isn't smart enough to know if it's constitutional or not, he shouldn't fawking be in congress. 

[Chris]

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.

[youtube=425,350]EnmvVo_itT0[/youtube]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp

[Oceander]

If Demint isn't smart enough to know if it's constitutional or not, he shouldn't fawking be in congress. 

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.

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

[Patriot Lady]

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
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???????

[bkg]

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.

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.

[Oceander]

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???????

Uh, excuse me, would you mind explaining how you managed to equate my statement:

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

with anything that even remotely sounds like I'm saying that the Democrats made even the slightest pretense at any effort, in good faith or not, to follow the dictates of the Constitution?

Read before you type, hmm.

[Oceander]

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.

[bkg]

Not necessarily; that's a gambit that has more holes than the string-theorist's 21-d space has.

I'm listening...

[Oceander]

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.