House Spending Bill - goodbye contribution limits

[OutHouse]

Gotta pass it to see what's in it.

 

[fskimospy]

Gotta pass it to see what's in it.

lol. A second person makes the same mistake.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol. A second person makes the same mistake.

How is "But we have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy." materially different?

 

[PokerGuy]

How is "But we have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy." materially different?

It is obviously very different because she's a left winger and thus by definition correct. Duh. You're just one of those dumb people Gruber was talking about needing to lie to

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's more that any way we would structure society in which we could make sure that someone more powerful than me couldn't hurt me is a world in which that cure is worse than the disease in my opinion.

There will always be the more powerful which will exert more influence than you or I. I accept that. Where the problem lies in not the potential but the actualization of substantial harm. If I were to say. "Hey babe that's a hot dress" to someone at work I can have an incredible backlash against me. Note this does not mean I endorse inappropriate behavior, but suppose now I say- "I don't like you. I don't like your politics. I don't like your position on homosexuality. I don't care if you do your job with excellence. I don't care if you are an overall asset. I don't like you and I will destroy you to the best of my ability.

I have to say the latter scenario is the more egregious of the two, and there is no moral justification for defending the person with the skirt and ignoring the other. I have a real problem with that.

 

[Bird222]

How is "But we have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy." materially different?

Not that again. Do you really think that is what she said?

 

[fskimospy]

How is "But we have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy." materially different?

"We have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy" means that Pelosi believed that Congress needed to pass the bill so that Congress could find out what's in it without having to be subject to misleading statements about the bill.

"We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it" (what she actually said, btw) means that Pelosi believed that Congress needed to pass the bill so that the average American could find out what's in it without having to be subject to misleading statements about the bill.

Those two words change the object of the sentence, which massively changes its meaning. From what you wrote I'm guessing you've been making the same mistake for a long time too.

 

[fleshconsumed]

^
^
^

This is why we can never have a rational discussion and why we don't have a chance to actually changing anything in our politics. Whenever one party does something deplorable right now their consituents immediately jump into actions pointing out something similar that the other party did in the past. This applies to both democrats and republicans alike. No one is actually interested in righting the wrong, it just becomes a blame game at this point without any useful outcome. The matter of fact is that Pelosi attitude in passing Obamacare was wrong, but these "late addition amendments" to the bill are wrong too. Yet, instead of acknowledging the fact that Pelosi was wrong and then agreeing that these amendments should be thrown out of the current bill people are bickering over who said what and how to interpret it. I want to say to all of you bickering people above - you reap what you sow. Keep pointing fingers at each other while the hole gets deeper and deeper, yes, that will really change the situation.

 

[fskimospy]

^
^
^

This is why we can never have a rational discussion and why we don't have a chance to actually changing anything in our politics. Whenever one party does something deplorable right now their consituents immediately jump into actions pointing out something similar that the other party did in the past. This applies to both democrats and republicans alike. No one is actually interested in righting the wrong, it just becomes a blame game at this point without any useful outcome. The matter of fact is that Pelosi attitude in passing Obamacare was wrong, but these "late addition amendments" to the bill are wrong too. Yet, instead of acknowledging the fact that Pelosi was wrong and then agreeing that these amendments should be thrown out of the current bill people are bickering over who said what and how to interpret it. I want to say to all of you bickering people above - you reap what you sow. Keep pointing fingers at each other while the hole gets deeper and deeper, yes, that will really change the situation.

What was wrong with what Pelosi did?

I actually tend to think that "a pox on both your houses" is one of the biggest problems in US politics. False equivalence just encourages bad behavior because people know they won't be called out for it.

 

[dainthomas]

Yeah, wow, I got two words wrong. Good catch genius, that makes her conduct so much better and I now see why you support her. She's the political hack your side deserves but doesn't need right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSkeJbQy74

To clarify, Pelosi did something you hate so it's OK for Replicans to do the same thing?

 

[glenn1]

To clarify, Pelosi did something you hate so it's OK for Replicans to do the same thing?

I disagree with the tactic of adding unrelated riders to spending bills and would encourage the GOP to not do it, but Pelosi is utterly the wrong person to complain. As far as the contribution limits thing goes, I have no strong feelings about it and don't care if it goes away but think the self-serving politics of the left about it are ridiculous.

 

[Kwatt]

bipartisan = We both get to screw you. And you will pay us for the servicing.

Wasn't there something in it about covering the "too big to fail banks" derivative trades with the FDIC?

.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"We have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy" means that Pelosi believed that Congress needed to pass the bill so that Congress could find out what's in it without having to be subject to misleading statements about the bill.

"We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it" (what she actually said, btw) means that Pelosi believed that Congress needed to pass the bill so that the average American could find out what's in it without having to be subject to misleading statements about the bill.

Those two words change the object of the sentence, which massively changes its meaning. From what you wrote I'm guessing you've been making the same mistake for a long time too.

I actually made the mistake transcribing her spoken words. Still looks to me like you're pouring a hell of a lot of meaning into the semantics here.

 

[Zorba]

How is "But we have to pass it to find out what's in it, away from the fog of the controversy." materially different?

Big difference is that bill was debated forever. The basic frame work was exactly the same as what was discussed in the democratic primary debates ad nauseam. The only people that didn't have a pretty good idea what was in the bill were Fox News viewers.

Edit: Not to mention she went over a lot of things in the bill in the same speech. Sound byte news is destroying American Politics.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually made the mistake transcribing her spoken words. Still looks to me like you're pouring a hell of a lot of meaning into the semantics here.

Not really, that's simply what she said and the meaning is quite clear. Here's a contemporary thing on it from politifact. You'll notice at the time even Republicans knew that's what she meant.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not really, that's simply what she said and the meaning is quite clear. Here's a contemporary thing on it from politifact. You'll notice at the time even Republicans knew that's what she meant.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

Mostly true.

 

[theeedude]

Americans voted Republicans, so they support more taxpayer backed risk for banks and legal kickbacks to political parties. Who are these liberal Democrats to disagree with the will of the American people?

 

[fskimospy]

Mostly true.

Did you read the article at all? It states that Pelosi said that they needed to pass it so that the American people could find out what was in it. That was my interpretation, Politifact's interpretation, and the interpretation of the Republicans making hay about the phrase.

So by "a hell of a lot of meaning" you mean "the meaning that everyone took from it".

 

[rudder]

Big difference is that bill was debated forever. The basic frame work was exactly the same as what was discussed in the democratic primary debates ad nauseam. The only people that didn't have a pretty good idea what was in the bill were Fox News viewers.

Edit: Not to mention she went over a lot of things in the bill in the same speech. Sound byte news is destroying American Politics.

Seems to me we should be thankful to the fox news viewers for not falling for Grubers deception regarding the ACA. Hell, even obama thought people would be able to keep their plans and doctors.... or was he intentionally lying as well?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Fire
everyone

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did you read the article at all? It states that Pelosi said that they needed to pass it so that the American people could find out what was in it. That was my interpretation, Politifact's interpretation, and the interpretation of the Republicans making hay about the phrase.

So by "a hell of a lot of meaning" you mean "the meaning that everyone took from it".

I read it all and it said "Mostly True" at the end....did you miss that part? Anyway, the American people finally found out what was in that bill and don't seem to like it one bit. I imagine they'll be screaming 'bloody murder' when the mandate starts hitting like a truck.

 

[cabri]

Big difference is that bill was debated forever. The basic frame work was exactly the same as what was discussed in the democratic primary debates ad nauseam. The only people that didn't have a pretty good idea what was in the bill were Fox News viewers.

Edit: Not to mention she went over a lot of things in the bill in the same speech. Sound byte news is destroying American Politics.

When a bill has TBD within it; there is a problem.

There is no input afterwards from the public on the TBD. It is then a government entity that has no public oversight to fill in the blanks according to what they want to happen. :thumbsdown:

 

[fskimospy]

I read it all and it said "Mostly True" at the end....did you miss that part?

That helps my point, not yours. The article has the same interpretation of her words as I did. You claimed that I was imparting a lot of meaning to those words. The article seems to be pretty clear that I'm not.

Anyway, the American people finally found out what was in that bill and don't seem to like it one bit. I imagine they'll be screaming 'bloody murder' when the mandate starts hitting like a truck.

First, the idea of the mandate 'hitting like a truck' is pretty hilarious hyperbole.

Second, you picked a very convenient month to use Kaiser's poll from. Is there any reason why you picked July instead of say... the most recent data available? (other than the fact that July's numbers paint a far more favorable light for you?)

You have a tendency to do this sort of thing fairly frequently.

http://kff.org/interactive/health-t...publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/

As we've talked about before, this sort of poll doesn't differentiate between people who disapprove because they think it doesn't go far enough and people who think it goes too far/is communism/OMGMuslims.

It's odd you would choose that when Kaiser has an element of the same poll that does just that:

It shows a divide within the margin of error on what should be done, heavily based on party loyalty. Shocker.

Don't just look at the first piece of news that validates your opinion.

EDIT By the way, I really really look forward to the day where Republicans unveil an actual alternative to the ACA. They keep claiming they will someday, but never do. I wonder why?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They keep claiming they will someday, but never do. I wonder why?

Because they haven't a clue either.

I think we ought to give them something easy to work on, like lasting ME peace. Then they can progress to more challenging things.

 

[theeedude]

Obamacare was the Republican alternative to universal single payer. The only thing Republicans can unveil at this point is a whole lot of nothing.