Madame Pelosi said ---

[muycurioso]

"we have to pass the bill to know what is in it," all elected democrats said yes ma'am (we OBEY party leadership) not a tiny bit of dissent

 

[Que]

to be fair, law is almost NEVER written by elected officials...on RARE occasion, a lawyer on their respective staff writes it but nearly ALL law is written by lobby firms with teams of lawyers...a fair amount of regulation occurs in just the same way.

Even if they READ it, most elected officials would not be able to understand the legal jargon it is purposefully obscured in...

Yes, I AM aware that the majority of both houses ARE lawyers but few of them were ever any good at it. Passing the bar does not require understanding the law and its nuances.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

"we have to pass the bill to know what is in it," all elected democrats said yes ma'am (we OBEY party leadership) not a tiny bit of dissent

You have the quote wrong, surprise.

She said “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” The fact is, the Senate version of the bill was posted online in it's entirety for well over 72 hours before the House took up the vote.

 

[Que]

You have the quote wrong, surprise.

She said “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” The fact is, the Senate version of the bill was posted online in it's entirety for well over 72 hours before the House took up the vote.

How does the truncate change the meaning?

72 hours? How many pages would you have to analyze per hour?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How does the truncate change the meaning?

72 hours? How many pages would you have to analyze per hour?

That's not even the real point of this bill; it is the writing of even more thousands of pages of regulations by the entrenched and arrogant bureaucracy.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Then there was the crony Capitalism, Solyndra-style, in the picking of the web designers.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And the cherry on top is Obama deciding to ignore the law of the land.

And yeah, since I cans see that some of the regular gang is here, I only oppose the ACA because I hate Obama because he is black...

Yeah, I get it, I think like I do because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed the ACA it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed the Stimulus it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed bailing out GM and the banks it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed Part D drug benefits it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed No Child Left behind it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I opposed Al Gore because he lied for Clinton and stayed on in an impeached administration it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I was pissed that the UN left Saddam in place during Desert Storm it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I hated Reagan and everything he stood for it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I wanted Nixon gone over Watergate it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.
When I was out protesting the Vietnam War, it was because OBAMABAD because I hate Democrats.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

How does the truncate change the meaning?

72 hours? How many pages would you have to analyze per hour?

It wasn't truncated, the quote is wrong.
The OP quote implied that they in congress didn't know what was in the bill. Her quote actually stated that WE, Joe and Jane Six-Pack didn't, and wouldn't until the bill was passed and the fog cleared, much like Medicare Part D. The fog being the misinformation STILL being perpetuated by it's opponents.

The House stated that new laws would be posted online for at least 72 hours prior to voting for transparency's sake (H.RES 230). If you don't think that's enough time then take it up with the GOP House, who introduced the bill.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

And the cherry on top is Obama deciding to ignore the law of the land.

And yeah, since I cans see that some of the regular gang is here, I only oppose the ACA because I hate Obama because he is black...

Always the victim huh Cap'n?

 

[Que]

It wasn't truncated, the quote is wrong.
The OP quote implied that they in congress didn't know what was in the bill. Her quote actually stated that WE, Joe and Jane Six-Pack didn't, and wouldn't until the bill was passed and the fog cleared, much like Medicare Part D. The fog being the misinformation STILL being perpetuated by it's opponents.

The House stated that new laws would be posted online for at least 72 hours prior to voting for transparency's sake (H.RES 230). If you don't think that's enough time then take it up with the GOP House, who introduced the bill.

Oh, thanks for the clarification... that IS much worse.. that our overlords don't need to have us have any understanding of what's in legislation they're passing until after its fate accompli.

Especially Since u supporters keep telling us that it is the law not subject to repeal not subject to modification and its perfect in every way the way it is..

How would you feel if after it was passed, the fog has lifted, let's just assume that no one but your favorite news outlets existed and Obama cares propaganda machine and people STILL didn't like it... I guess Joe Sixpack shouldn't have a say in these things?

I'm glad you have that level of confidence in your leaders.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Oh thanks for the clarification... that is much worse.. that are overlords don't need to have us have any understanding of what's in legislation there passing until after its fate accompli.

I'm glad you have that level of confidence in your leaders.

It's not uncommon for the general public to not know the specific ins and outs of any particular law before it's passed and takes effect. I used Medicare part D for just that reason. Even though the law was covered relentlessly, the true effects of the law were not and could not be known until it was implemented.

If you DON'T have confidence of your leaders then why are you voting for them?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pelosi is IRL lucid and rational and oriented. She isn't a loony leftie nutjob as most of us believe. The nuttiness is an act libs love, cuz its how they are, and Nancy is pragmatic.

 

[Que]

It's not uncommon for the general public to not know the specific ins and outs of any particular law before it's passed and takes effect. I used Medicare part D for just that reason. Even though the law was covered relentlessly, the true effects of the law were not and could not be known until it was implemented.

If you DON'T have confidence of your leaders then why are you voting for them?

It kind of makes sense the way you see any reduction in governmental power as anarchy when you are completely fine with a totalitarian state.

By comparison I would have to agree liberty is anarchy.

Is there anything at all that you wouldn't trust the government to decide for you?

The fact that you can stand up for one of the most lunatic things Nancy Pelosi ever said as opposed for example to being embarrassed by or minimize such a statement convinces me that you and I would not ever have a meaningful discourse..

Nancy Pelosi is a world apart. I do not reside on planet Pelosi..

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It kind of makes sense the way you see any reduction in governmental power as anarchy when you are completely fine with a totalitarian state.

By comparison I would have to agree liberty is anarchy.

Is there anything at all that you wouldn't trust the government to decide for you?

When you finish ascribing positions to me we can talk about my actual beliefs.

Let me know when you're all finished with your attack on the straw man you so industriously set up for yourself there.

 

[Que]

When you finish ascribing positions to me we can talk about my actual beliefs.

Let me know when you're all finished with your attack on the straw man you so industriously set up for yourself there.

Another lib who thinks they can defend an untenable position by simply redefining the rules of rhetorical argument.

Toss out a few buzz words like straw man and false equivalency, then describe your opponet as irrational in a nice condescending tone.

Yeah, don't wanna play.

I am new here, are false equivalency and ascription the buzz words for this week? And who passes out the new ones?

 

[Que]

Pelosi is IRL lucid and rational and oriented. She isn't a loony leftie nutjob as most of us believe. The nuttiness is an act libs love, cuz its how they are, and Nancy is pragmatic.

Admitedly, she has managed to stay well out of harm's way with ethics violations while amassing a great fortune through a husband using her insider knowledge... So I guess she can't be as dumb as she sounds.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Cornelius Tacitus

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Another lib who thinks they can defend an untenable position by simply redefining the rules of rhetorical argument.

Toss out a few buzz words like straw man and false equivalency, then describe your opponet as a rational in a nice condescending tone.

Yeah, don't wanna play.

I am new here, are false equivalency and ascription the buzz words for this week? And who passes out the new ones?

I'm not defending an untenable position which I hold. I'm refusing to defend the one you ascribed to me, "It kind of makes sense the way you see any reduction in governmental power as anarchy when you are completely fine with a totalitarian state."

I don't see any reduction in government as anarchy, and I'm not fine with a totalitarian state. Those are positions you assigned to me in order to dismiss my argument.

So don't play, don't tell me how *I* feel about something. It's up to me to tell you that.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
Cornelius Tacitus

Why is there a decided lack of Libertarian governed countries Cap'n?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Admitedly, she has managed to stay well out of harm's way with ethics violations while amassing a great fortune through a husband using her insider knowledge... So I guess she can't be as dumb as she sounds.

I subscribe to the proposition, THE MEANING OF ANYTHING IS THE OUTCOME YOU GET.

No one ever went to Washington to do good, they go there to do well.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This particular RWCJ lie by taking a statement out of context really bothers me. OK, here we go:

<rant>
It is impossible for the House to know what is in the Senate version of a bill until it is passed. It can be amended right up until the last minute before the final vote. Then in the normal process the House and Senate versions of a bill go to a reconciliation committee for the purpose of settling the differences between the two versions of the bill. So of course, until that process is complete you cannot know what is in the final version, because it is not final.

Therefore, passing the bill makes it no longer subject to change. And once it is no longer subject to change you will know what is in it, formally. It really is not so hard to understand with a little context.

I recognize that you need more words then what will fit on a bumper sticker to understand the concept of a legislative process in a bicameral legislature, but a lack of education on your part should not preclude the ability to think and reason. The really frustrating thing is I think you have to really try to act so dumb so as not to be able to understand this reasonably simple context.

What purpose does it serve to be so deliberately disingenuous?
</rant>

 

[RobDownSouth]

Always the victim huh Cap'n?

Always, and in all ways.

 

[Que]

This particular RWCJ lie by taking a statement out of context really bothers me. OK, here we go:

<rant>
It is impossible for the House to know what is in the Senate version of a bill until it is passed. It can be amended right up until the last minute before the final vote. Then in the normal process the House and Senate versions of a bill go to a reconciliation committee for the purpose of settling the differences between the two versions of the bill. So of course, until that process is complete you cannot know what is in the final version, because it is not final.

Therefore, passing the bill makes it no longer subject to change. And once it is no longer subject to change you will know what is in it, formally. It really is not so hard to understand with a little context.

I recognize that you need more words then what will fit on a bumper sticker to understand the concept of a legislative process in a bicameral legislature, but a lack of education on your part should not preclude the ability to think and reason. The really frustrating thing is I think you have to really try to act so dumb so as not to be able to understand this reasonably simple context.

What purpose does it serve to be so deliberately disingenuous?
</rant>

So she chose that moment to educate all of us idiots right?


There was not an environment of that time completely hospitable to a bill being ramroded through a bicameral legislature on a non bipartisan basis.

What was known about the bill was and is still not liked by a majority of the American public.

What was known was objected to then she issued that statement to tell us to sit down and shut up.

You have the gall to use the word disingenuous after writing that tripe?

You don't remember Democrats hiding from their constituents town hall meetings??!!??

You make it sound like it was and it is some kind of simple misunderstanding that we just don't know how good this is for us. Plenty of a subject for very good reasons

Plenty of you like it because either it will benefit you or you erroneously think it will benefit you.

Others of you see it as a step on the way to single payer which you god damn well know the American public does not support.

 

[richard_daily]

How does the truncate change the meaning?

72 hours? How many pages would you have to analyze per hour?

You can't be that dense...

Did you fail English 101?

She was saying that the fog of controversy is obscuring things.

 

[Que]

You can't be that dense...

Did you fail English 101?

She was saying that the fog of controversy is obscuring things.

You obviously are that dense.

So theres is fog of confusion so let's hurry up and pass it???

Is there nothing so stupid that you won't repeat it?

You know the one that I don't know it all however I've never seen you post one single thing that was your own independent thought other than what you think about other people.

Since you think I'm stupid why don't you explain it to me like I'm five what Obamacare is how it works and how it's going to benefit to come tree in a specially explain to me how it is now and will in the future been the cost curve down.