PDA

View Full Version : Speaker Boehner explains the facts ...



LWW
01-20-2011, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(AP) WASHINGTON - In a hastily held press conference new speaker of the house John Boehner, (R) Ohio, was grilled by the press corps in attendance.

Mr Boehner was asked what specifically the republicans would pass to replace the 2010 health care bill if it was repealed. He replied "We have to pass the new bill so we can see what's in it." As a follow up question Mr Boehner was asked if he believed the new house republicans had the constitutional authority to act in such an unprecedented manner as repealing a bill which has not yet fully taken effect. His short but terse reply was "Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?"

Following Mr Boehner was the new house majority leader Eric Cantor, (R) Va., who stated that Mr Boehner was a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=332773#Post332773)

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:14 AM
HAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHA!!

pooltchr
01-20-2011, 07:20 AM
LMAO!!!!! What a great response, using Nancy's own words. I guess he figured if the press bought it when she said it, it should still fly today!

Good to see he has a sense of humor.

Steve

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:24 AM
The look on Pelosi's face must have been priceless.
HAHHHA!!

pooltchr
01-20-2011, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The look on Pelosi's face must have been priceless.
HAHHHA!! </div></div>

Not at all. The look on her face was paid for with botox treatments!!!!

Steve

Sev
01-20-2011, 09:18 AM
Its a frozen asset aye???

Chopstick
01-20-2011, 10:45 AM
<span style="color: #000099">As much as I would like this to be true, there is nothing under your link and I am unable to locate it.

Good one though.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 11:53 AM
Sometimes true statements about our system of making laws seem entirely ridiculous, to those who do not understand the process.

When Speaker Pelosi said those things in early '09, they were absolutely true. The House had three differing bills that were passed, the Senate had not yet passed anything, and of course the conference to reconcile the bills (one of which didn't exist then) hadn't taken place. All that could be certain at the time she spoke was that the final bill would differ from every early House bill, which themselves differed. She couldn't speak to what would be possible to pass in the Senate, nor what the WH would try to insist on, nor what the compromises in reconciliation would require. SO, it was entirely true that NO ONE, not the Speaker and not anyone else either, could say what the final bill would include, until the intermediate steps of passing all the starting point bills allowed the final shaping. (We have to pass [them, the starting bills] before we'll know what's in [the final legislation].)

As for the constitutionality of the individual mandate, it was a GOP idea dating back to the '90s health care reform debate (which is where Mitt Romney got his individual mandate in his MassCare plan). As late as mid-'09, I think it was, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said that there was a broad consensus forming that the individual mandate ought to be the way forward.

Suddenly, the GOP 'discovered' that the very idea was unconstitutional. When Grassley was asked how it was that the GOP invented this idea, held it for almost 20 years, and had begun to form a consensus to go forward with it as late as mid-'09, only to NOW realize it was against the Constitution, Grassley replied 'I guess we didn't really think it through.'

Well, obviously, bs. They went 180 degrees against their own proposals using any bad faith, known to be false excuse they could muster, simply because they were going to oppose whatever was proposed.

But that is why Speaker Pelosi expressed incredulity over the issue of whether this was unconstitutional. The other party invented the idea, and to that day, still pushed it.

Out of context of reality, her statements sounded ridiculous, or dismissive. In context, they were simply explanation of the facts.

pooltchr
01-20-2011, 12:03 PM
You have been making some reasonable points since you came to this forum, but trying to spin Pelosi's most ignorant statement of her career into something logical falls way short.
Asking someone to vote for something when they don't know what exactly they are voting for is insane. That isn't how things work. Maybe if they had taken time to put together a reasonable reform bill, she wouldn't have been trying to force it through, by deeming it to be passed.

Now you bring up the Massachusetts healthcare bill, on which Obamacare was based. But you fail to mention that the plan in Mass has been considerably more expensive and considerably less effective than originally planned.

However, I will give you credit for trying.

Steve

eg8r
01-20-2011, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She couldn't speak to what would be possible to pass in the Senate, nor what the WH would try to insist on, nor what the compromises in reconciliation would require. SO, it was entirely true that NO ONE, not the Speaker and not anyone else either, could say what the final bill would include, until the intermediate steps of passing all the starting point bills allowed the final shaping. (We have to pass [them, the starting bills] before we'll know what's in [the final legislation].)
</div></div>Quite a large stretch for someone that appears to level headed. You are playing games here. We all know that the politicians had a very good idea what would be in the bill. Also, the thread about the update on transparency seemed to forget the fact that there hasn't been a single bill passed yet that met Obama's qualifications of being available to read 3 days ahead of time before passing. THE FINAL BILL IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL POLITICIANS TO READ PRIOR TO VOTING. That should make sense otherwise they are voting first only to find out what is there which is the ridiculous idea you are trying to pass on to us.

eg8r

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sometimes true statements about our system of making laws seem entirely ridiculous, to those who do not understand the process.

When Speaker Pelosi said those things in early '09, they were absolutely true. </div></div>

So ... are you really this poorly up on things, or just pimping deceit knowing that the O-cult will nod their collectivist heads in unison?

The quote was on 18 March, 3 days before the house passed the bill on 21 March. The senate passed the bill in December. With the seating of Brown from Massachusetts the bill could never get through the senate again so reconciliation was out of the question.

The SPOTH had from 24 December, 2009 until 18 March, 2010 to learn what was or wasn't in the bill. It did not and could not change by a single word in that time period.

Please ... brush up on reality before you make any more indefensible claims.

You may wow the likes of Snoopy, Aitch, and Gee ... but not El Dubb Dubb.

LWW

jimmyg
01-20-2011, 03:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> She couldn't speak to what would be possible to pass in the Senate, nor what the WH would try to insist on, nor what the compromises in reconciliation would require. SO, it was entirely true that NO ONE, not the Speaker and not anyone else either, could say what the final bill would include, until the intermediate steps of passing all the starting point bills allowed the final shaping. (We have to pass [them, the starting bills] before we'll know what's in [the final legislation].)</div></div>

Nice try. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I don't believe that she was being asked for forcast the future, rather, she was simply being asked, what provisions were included in the bill as of the time she was asked. She clearly had no answer since the bill was written by the health care industry, and she didn't bother to read, or perhaps understand it.

J

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She couldn't speak to what would be possible to pass in the Senate, nor what the WH would try to insist on, nor what the compromises in reconciliation would require. SO, it was entirely true that NO ONE, not the Speaker and not anyone else either, could say what the final bill would include, until the intermediate steps of passing all the starting point bills allowed the final shaping. (We have to pass [them, the starting bills] before we'll know what's in [the final legislation].) </div></div>

That is complete, unadulterated, 100.0% pure, non diluted, absolute and total forever and ever amen Barbara Streisand.

1 - The senate bill had not only already passed, it had passed months before.

2 - The only reason the SOTH didn't know, assuming that she actually didn't, was that she didn't care to know.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As for the constitutionality of the individual mandate, it was a GOP idea dating back to the '90s health care reform debate (which is where Mitt Romney got his individual mandate in his MassCare plan). As late as mid-'09, I think it was, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley said that there was a broad consensus forming that the individual mandate ought to be the way forward.</div></div>

Which is completely irrelevant as to whether it is or is not unconstitutional.

BTW ... and not that I support Romney's idea ... the COTUS allows for the states to require whatever the states decide to require.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Suddenly, the GOP 'discovered' that the very idea was unconstitutional. When Grassley was asked how it was that the GOP invented this idea, held it for almost 20 years, and had begun to form a consensus to go forward with it as late as mid-'09, only to NOW realize it was against the Constitution, Grassley replied 'I guess we didn't really think it through.</div></div>

Got a link for that?

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But that is why Speaker Pelosi expressed incredulity over the issue of whether this was unconstitutional. The other party invented the idea, and to that day, still pushed it.</div></div>

I refuse to believe that you believe that.

Her incredulity was a member of the slack jawed softball media actually dared to ask a semi hard question without first allowing the party to vette it.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Out of context of reality, her statements sounded ridiculous, or dismissive. In context, they were simply explanation of the facts. </div></div>

What bothers you obviously is that there are people who see the statements in their actual context.

Free thinkers are, and always have been, enemies of the state.

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:15 PM
Pelosi had no idea what was in that bill. Only bullet points.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 09:39 PM
You have been making some reasonable points since you came to this forum,


Thanks, Steve!

but trying to spin Pelosi's most ignorant statement of her career into something logical falls way short.

A very civil way to disagree, and I thank you again.

Asking someone to vote for something when they don't know what exactly they are voting for is insane. That isn't how things work.

I agree, but that is NOT how they worked in this case, either. Pelosi at that late date when the whole package had already been passed and signed was referring to the public knowing what was REALLY in the bill, as she said, 'away from the fog of controversy,' e.g., bs claims about non-existent death panels. She was not telling House members to vote sight-unseen. They all had the text before hand, and staff to figure out anything that was unclear. Besides which, the real devil in the details was the implementation, a lot of which is phrased 'according to the Secretary's judgment,' or words to that effect. What it will eventually turn into is somewhat unclear, still, for that reason.

Maybe if they had taken time to put together a reasonable reform bill, she wouldn't have been trying to force it through, by deeming it to be passed.

As you may know, since you wrote 'trying to force it through' that way, the demon pass isn't what happened. That attempt, which had been done some dozens of times in past Congresses including GOP majority ones, is a technique the GOP has already used in this Congress, I think. It was a parliamentary maneuver for political reasons related to the then-upcoming midterms, to try to keep Blue Dog Dems safer than if they were on record with yet another actual roll-call vote on what had become a toxic matter with their Red State constituents.

But you fail to mention that the plan in Mass has been considerably more expensive and considerably less effective than originally planned.

How it's worked out is a different subject. I reference it only to show how mainstream a GOP idea it has always been, up through '09 with Grassley's comment that it had gained consensus support (meaning also in the GOP).

However, I will give you credit for trying.

Once again, thank you.

Sev
01-20-2011, 09:50 PM
Insane?
It depends on the end game.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 09:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She couldn't speak to what would be possible to pass in the Senate, nor what the WH would try to insist on, nor what the compromises in reconciliation would require. SO, it was entirely true that NO ONE, not the Speaker and not anyone else either, could say what the final bill would include, until the intermediate steps of passing all the starting point bills allowed the final shaping. (We have to pass [them, the starting bills] before we'll know what's in [the final legislation].) </div></div>

That is complete, unadulterated, 100.0% pure, non diluted, absolute and total forever and ever amen Barbara Streisand.

1 - The senate bill had not only already passed, it had passed months before.

2 - The only reason the SOTH didn't know, assuming that she actually didn't, was that she didn't care to know.

LWW </div></div>

As Solicitor-General Ted Olson once remarked, to general laughter from the Supreme Court, 'this is not our strongest argument.'

Frankly, I misremembered the timing of her remark and thought it was March '09, which would have made my discussion (cough) slightly more correct, LOL! As opposed to fairly stupid and obviously wholly incorrect, I mean. I thank you for correcting my incorrect (suppressed) factual premise.

Taking Olson as my guide, however (despite the high court's ridicule of his 'not strongest argument,' he persevered with more arguments), and as lawyers like to argue in the alternative, cf: my response to Steve.

It had to be passed so the public would come to know what is REALLY in the bill, 'apart from the fog of controversy,' meaning hysterical bs claims of things there that were not there.

She did not mean that the members of Congress had to vote before they could know, nor did she mean that she didn't know, but that people didn't know.

And there remain vagarys still, in the implementation regs that are to be written by the Secretary. It is true that until those are done, we still don't fully know what will happen.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 09:56 PM
Which is completely irrelevant as to whether it is or is not unconstitutional.


I agree, but one must wonder why, if it is unconstitutional, that fact escaped GOP notice since about '93 when they began to propose it.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 09:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Suddenly, the GOP 'discovered' that the very idea was unconstitutional. When Grassley was asked how it was that the GOP invented this idea, held it for almost 20 years, and had begun to form a consensus to go forward with it as late as mid-'09, only to NOW realize it was against the Constitution, Grassley replied 'I guess we didn't really think it through.</div></div>

Got a link for that?

LWW </div></div>

Another error for me. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cry.gif

It's a close enough paraphrase, but I got the GOP senator wrong. It was Orrin Hatch.

Hatch flip-flops (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/26/hatch)

Sev
01-20-2011, 10:01 PM
They conspired against the will of the people. They passes an omnibus bill filled with amendments and modifications to existing law that it is not understandable to any single human being.

Such nefarious activities by our elected officials should be unconstitutional. It is not in alignment with the spirit of the constitution and is only achieve by bastardizing standing procedures.

LWW
01-21-2011, 04:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which is completely irrelevant as to whether it is or is not unconstitutional.


I agree, but one must wonder why, if it is unconstitutional, that fact escaped GOP notice since about '93 when they began to propose it. </div></div>

You are close to an epiphany.

Here's why:

A - The right which believes in folloing the COTUS has no party currently. The TPM has taken the approach that it is easier, hopefully, to rebuild the GOP than it would be to start up a major 3rd party as Perot did.

B - The republichickens are not a conservative party. It is a leftist - statist party.

C - The democrooks differ in that they are the moonbat crazy leftist - statist party.

LWW

Sev
01-21-2011, 07:30 AM
We need a Grover Cleveland.

pooltchr
01-21-2011, 08:09 AM
Pelosi knew exactly what bill was being voted on...and it was not the house version. The only bill at that time that could possibly reach the president's desk was the Senate version that had already been passed. So if she didn't know what was in the bill, or couldn't tell anyone what was in the bill, it was ignorance of her own choosing. The Senate could not have passed any new house version, so when she made her pass it to see it comment, it was completely false.
Some of us knew what was in it before the vote.

Steve

Qtec
01-21-2011, 08:45 AM
Sorry, there is something wrong here. Mmmmmm.

I know, you can't have' Boehner and facts' in the same sentence.

Q

Sev
01-21-2011, 09:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pelosi knew exactly what bill was being voted on...and it was not the house version. The only bill at that time that could possibly reach the president's desk was the Senate version that had already been passed. So if she didn't know what was in the bill, or couldn't tell anyone what was in the bill, it was ignorance of her own choosing. The Senate could not have passed any new house version, so when she made her pass it to see it comment, it was completely false.
Some of us knew what was in it before the vote.

Steve </div></div>

Its a nation killer.