Somebody forgot to tell Joe this wasn't a town hall

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Fern
And with exactly enforcement that inserted phrase is meaning except for political cover.

I defamed their message twice, (1) ruling with no details and (2) CRS report contrary to their finding.

Fern

I don't think enforcement has any place in bills. That's part of the judicial and regulatory bodies. You're going to have to frame your argument better because what I think you're saying really doesn't apply to the bill.

Uh, no.

Generally a bill has enforcement. In this instance, Congress delegated that to the Commissioner (or whaterver his/her tilte will be).

These will be what is known as "statutory regulations". That means they have the full force and effect of a statute (language written into a bill).

So, they are "statute" (as if in the bill); but just done in a surreptitious way.

Now, the reason for doing this should be rather obvious - the rules won't need to be debated or passed. If you wanna do something unpopular, this is how you get it done.

Fern

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Fern
And with exactly enforcement that inserted phrase is meaning except for political cover.

I defamed their message twice, (1) ruling with no details and (2) CRS report contrary to their finding.

Fern

I don't think enforcement has any place in bills. That's part of the judicial and regulatory bodies. You're going to have to frame your argument better because what I think you're saying really doesn't apply to the bill.

Uh, no.

Generally a bill has enforcement. In this instance, Congress delegated that to the Commissioner (or whaterver his/her tilte will be).

These will be what is known as "statutory regulations". That means they have the full force and effect of a statute (language written into a bill).

So, they are "statute" (as if in the bill); but just done in a surreptitious way.

Now, the reason for doing this should be rather obvious - the rules won't need to be debated or passed. If you wanna do something unpopular, this is how you get it done.

Fern

You're seriously mincing words, definitions and logic here.

Your sentence shows this very simply.

"Congress delegated that" meaning enforcement was left/given to whatever.

Is there really a need to set up a unique entity for immigration enforcement within the bill? Sounds kind of redundant as we already have plenty of departments for this. (Ironically talk about big government and power grabs)

Well the reason for your argument is equally obvious, to insert controversy where there is none. Are we debating immigration or health care? Is it enough to say who or what qualifies for something?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Budmantom
All Joe was doing was interject a little bit of truth..... Obama and the Dem's and the Republicans will have none of it.

Negative.

He is wrong and he behaved like an ignorant oaf.

I agree Obama is wrong and he always acts like an ignorant oaf.

There's this defense mechanism known as psychological projection. You might want to look it up.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Fern
And with exactly enforcement that inserted phrase is meaning except for political cover.

I defamed their message twice, (1) ruling with no details and (2) CRS report contrary to their finding.

Fern

I don't think enforcement has any place in bills. That's part of the judicial and regulatory bodies. You're going to have to frame your argument better because what I think you're saying really doesn't apply to the bill.

Uh, no.

Generally a bill has enforcement. In this instance, Congress delegated that to the Commissioner (or whaterver his/her tilte will be).

These will be what is known as "statutory regulations". That means they have the full force and effect of a statute (language written into a bill).

So, they are "statute" (as if in the bill); but just done in a surreptitious way.

Now, the reason for doing this should be rather obvious - the rules won't need to be debated or passed. If you wanna do something unpopular, this is how you get it done.

Fern

You're seriously mincing words, definitions and logic here.

Your sentence shows this very simply.

"Congress delegated that" meaning enforcement was left/given to whatever.

Is there really a need to set up a unique entity for immigration enforcement within the bill? Sounds kind of redundant as we already have plenty of departments for this. (Ironically talk about big government and power grabs)

Well the reason for your argument is equally obvious, to insert controversy where there is none. Are we debating immigration or health care? Is it enough to say who or what qualifies for something?

Fern, like many of the mouth-foaming wingnuts, is simply making an issue out of nothing. Even the CRS report indicates that enforcement shall be implemented by the Health Commissioner. It's a non-issue, but watch, Fern will beat it like the dead horse it is. To death. :roll:

 

[monovillage]

Looks like Joe has gotten $750,000 in donations in the last 2 days. Here's the link.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...akes_in_750000_in.html

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: monovillage
Looks like Joe has gotten $750,000 in donations in the last 2 days. Here's the link.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...akes_in_750000_in.html

Was just going to post that. He's got a ton of support! I may even send him 500 bucks just to say "keep it up". One of the other forums I visit has a thread over 200 posts, all supporting him and giving him 100+ bucks each.

GO JOE!

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, like many of the mouth-foaming wingnuts, is simply making an issue out of nothing. Even the CRS report indicates that enforcement shall be implemented by the Health Commissioner. It's a non-issue, but watch, Fern will beat it like the dead horse it is. To death. :roll:

LOL
Like many things, many of the moth-foaming libtards, are simply making an issue out of nothing. The purposed disciplinary action against Joe is sheer hypocrisy as illustrated by the state of the union address given by BOOSH a few years ago.

If the immigration issues isn't an issue, why would the Democrats vote down amendments more than 5 times that would explicitly exclude illegals?

I mean we have laws on the books saying these people can't be here in the first place yet those laws are not enforced....so what make you think this "commissioner" will enforce something that is not specifically in writing?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spideyMcGowen

Originally posted by: monovillage
Looks like Joe has gotten $750,000 in donations in the last 2 days. Here's the link.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...akes_in_750000_in.html

Was just going to post that. He's got a ton of support! I may even send him 500 bucks just to say "keep it up". One of the other forums I visit, assholes are us, has a thread over 200 posts, all supporting him and giving him 100+ bucks each.

GO JOE!

One things for certain, birds of a feather flock together and you guys are some strange birds.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, like many of the mouth-foaming wingnuts, is simply making an issue out of nothing. Even the CRS report indicates that enforcement shall be implemented by the Health Commissioner. It's a non-issue, but watch, Fern will beat it like the dead horse it is. To death. :roll:

LOL
Like many things, many of the moth-foaming libtards, are simply making an issue out of nothing. The purposed disciplinary action against Joe is sheer hypocrisy as illustrated by the state of the union address given by BOOSH a few years ago.

If the immigration issues isn't an issue, why would the Democrats vote down amendments more than 5 times that would explicitly exclude illegals?

I mean we have laws on the books saying these people can't be here in the first place yet those laws are not enforced....so what make you think this "commissioner" will enforce something that is not specifically in writing?

Is that so? Care to support the bolded statement? Why would you need to amend a bill to exclude illegals if it already does so? 😕

Current (lack of) enforcement of immigration law is another issue altogether, deserving of its own thread. On that issue, I feel that we probably agree...

 

[cwjerome]

I found it rather interesting that someone would categorize Fern as a mouth-foaming wingnut. Kinda makes the rest of his words suspect.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, like many of the mouth-foaming wingnuts, is simply making an issue out of nothing. Even the CRS report indicates that enforcement shall be implemented by the Health Commissioner. It's a non-issue, but watch, Fern will beat it like the dead horse it is. To death. :roll:

LOL
Like many things, many of the moth-foaming libtards, are simply making an issue out of nothing. The purposed disciplinary action against Joe is sheer hypocrisy as illustrated by the state of the union address given by BOOSH a few years ago.

If the immigration issues isn't an issue, why would the Democrats vote down amendments more than 5 times that would explicitly exclude illegals?

I mean we have laws on the books saying these people can't be here in the first place yet those laws are not enforced....so what make you think this "commissioner" will enforce something that is not specifically in writing?

Is that so? Care to support the bolded statement? Why would you need to amend a bill to exclude illegals if it already does so? 😕

Current (lack of) enforcement of immigration law is another issue altogether, deserving of its own thread. On that issue, I feel that we probably agree...

From what I read, they voted down 2 amendments because it would of made it harder for anyone to get regular insurance through a private provider. Since it is legal for anyone to buy private insurance anyways. I could be wrong though.

 

[monovillage]

A link that's related with the White House wanting to stiffen restrictions on illegal immigrants being able to get health care, Pres Obama wants to extend it to private companies.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...s_health_care_overhaul

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jiggz
Basically, Joe Wilson is like the little lad who said the emperor doesn't have any clothes. That's all there is to it! It's an inappropriate and dumb comment by the little lad but it was also the real truth! So Joe didn't do too bad after all!

But no. It was Joe who was lying. It's been shown over and over in this thread and others. Feel free to ignore reality, but please stop inflicting your ignorance on the rest of us.

You sure are very good in name calling which basically terminates all decent and civilize discussions. As the saying goes, there is always a joker in every deck of card.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, like many of the mouth-foaming wingnuts, is simply making an issue out of nothing. Even the CRS report indicates that enforcement shall be implemented by the Health Commissioner. It's a non-issue, but watch, Fern will beat it like the dead horse it is. To death. :roll:

LOL
Like many things, many of the moth-foaming libtards, are simply making an issue out of nothing. The purposed disciplinary action against Joe is sheer hypocrisy as illustrated by the state of the union address given by BOOSH a few years ago.

If the immigration issues isn't an issue, why would the Democrats vote down amendments more than 5 times that would explicitly exclude illegals?

I mean we have laws on the books saying these people can't be here in the first place yet those laws are not enforced....so what make you think this "commissioner" will enforce something that is not specifically in writing?

Because HR3200 ALREADY has provisions excluding illegals from subsidies and ALREADY mandates a system to be setup by the health commissioner to ensure eligibility. Jesus dude, you act like you've never even read the bill, or even the relevant parts.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Jiggz
Basically, Joe Wilson is like the little lad who said the emperor doesn't have any clothes. That's all there is to it! It's an inappropriate and dumb comment by the little lad but it was also the real truth! So Joe didn't do too bad after all!

But no. It was Joe who was lying. It's been shown over and over in this thread and others. Feel free to ignore reality, but please stop inflicting your ignorance on the rest of us.

You sure are very good in name calling which basically terminates all decent and civilize discussions. As the saying goes, there is always a joker in every deck of card.

Calling you ignorant isn't calling you a name, it's simply pointing out the reality of this conversation. Lots of people, yourself included, seem content to weigh in on the legislation while having no clue what it says or what it includes or doesn't include. Apparently, you arrived at your conclusion that Joe was right and that Obama is lying by watching 5 seconds of FoxNews. What other explanation other than ignorance is there for your behavior?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Fern, like many of the mouth-foaming wingnuts, is simply making an issue out of nothing. Even the CRS report indicates that enforcement shall be implemented by the Health Commissioner. It's a non-issue, but watch, Fern will beat it like the dead horse it is. To death. :roll:

LOL
Like many things, many of the moth-foaming libtards, are simply making an issue out of nothing. The purposed disciplinary action against Joe is sheer hypocrisy as illustrated by the state of the union address given by BOOSH a few years ago.

If the immigration issues isn't an issue, why would the Democrats vote down amendments more than 5 times that would explicitly exclude illegals?

I mean we have laws on the books saying these people can't be here in the first place yet those laws are not enforced....so what make you think this "commissioner" will enforce something that is not specifically in writing?

Because HR3200 ALREADY has provisions excluding illegals from subsidies and ALREADY mandates a system to be setup by the health commissioner to ensure eligibility. Jesus dude, you act like you've never even read the bill, or even the relevant parts.

<yawn> When will you people stop slobbing BHO's knob and wake up? BHO was not truthful with his statement - EVEN IF you look at HR3200. Try keeping up - sheesh

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

<yawn> When will you people stop slobbing BHO's knob and wake up? BHO was not truthful with his statement - EVEN IF you look at HR3200. Try keeping up - sheesh

When will the crazed partisans wake up and realize that independant nonpartisan sources say Obama was correct? (I could cite them all day) The Republicans' basic argument is that because Obama's bill doesn't do as much as they want to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded... somehow includes illegal immigrants despite direct language to the contrary. Talk about trying to keep up... (I'm sure all the fact check sites are 'librul' though, right?)

The other argument is even stupider, that illegal immigrants could buy into the federal program at full price. It's totally true that they can, but we would be insane not to let them. Having more people pay into the system, particularly young people (as illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly), is nothing but a good thing for us. We will MAKE money off of that exchange. In order for the Democrats to have prohibited that, they would have had to be insane.

When Obama was talking, he was addressing the issue like a non-crazy person. What people in America are worried about is if their tax dollars are going to support someone here illegally. Obama's plan does not do that. This is why all the independent fact checking sites have sided convincingly with him.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

<yawn> When will you people stop slobbing BHO's knob and wake up? BHO was not truthful with his statement - EVEN IF you look at HR3200. Try keeping up - sheesh

When will the crazed partisans wake up and realize that independant nonpartisan sources say Obama was correct? (I could cite them all day) The Republicans' basic argument is that because Obama's bill doesn't do as much as they want to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded... somehow includes illegal immigrants despite direct language to the contrary. Talk about trying to keep up... (I'm sure all the fact check sites are 'librul' though, right?)

The other argument is even stupider, that illegal immigrants could buy into the federal program at full price. It's totally true that they can, but we would be insane not to let them. Having more people pay into the system, particularly young people (as illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly), is nothing but a good thing for us. We will MAKE money off of that exchange. In order for the Democrats to have prohibited that, they would have had to be insane.

When Obama was talking, he was addressing the issue like a non-crazy person. What people in America are worried about is if their tax dollars are going to support someone here illegally. Obama's plan does not do that. This is why all the independent fact checking sites have sided convincingly with him.

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

I did read the link, my post stands.

Like I said, to think that Obama's statement was untrue would require you to think about health care reform like an insane person. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats were not willing to take the incredibly irresponsible steps the Republicans were trying to make them do.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

I did read the link, my post stands.

Like I said, to think that Obama's statement was untrue would require you to think about health care reform like an insane person. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats were not willing to take the incredibly irresponsible steps the Republicans were trying to make them do.

Wrong. His statement is factually incorrect - period. His plan would in fact apply to illegals. They may not be fully covered or get "free" healthcare but that's not the claim here. The claim is from BHO that his reforms wouldn't cover illegals - no sane person looking at the "reform" debate can claim such a thing - especially since the D party won't add verification to reforms.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

<yawn> When will you people stop slobbing BHO's knob and wake up? BHO was not truthful with his statement - EVEN IF you look at HR3200. Try keeping up - sheesh

When will the crazed partisans wake up and realize that independant nonpartisan sources say Obama was correct? (I could cite them all day) The Republicans' basic argument is that because Obama's bill doesn't do as much as they want to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded... somehow includes illegal immigrants despite direct language to the contrary. Talk about trying to keep up... (I'm sure all the fact check sites are 'librul' though, right?)

The other argument is even stupider, that illegal immigrants could buy into the federal program at full price. It's totally true that they can, but we would be insane not to let them. Having more people pay into the system, particularly young people (as illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly), is nothing but a good thing for us. We will MAKE money off of that exchange. In order for the Democrats to have prohibited that, they would have had to be insane.

When Obama was talking, he was addressing the issue like a non-crazy person. What people in America are worried about is if their tax dollars are going to support someone here illegally. Obama's plan does not do that. This is why all the independent fact checking sites have sided convincingly with him.

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

I read the link too and came to the same conclusions as eskimospy. Instead of "playing coy" why don't you explain what conclusions you developed based on your linked article?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

I did read the link, my post stands.

Like I said, to think that Obama's statement was untrue would require you to think about health care reform like an insane person. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats were not willing to take the incredibly irresponsible steps the Republicans were trying to make them do.

Wrong. His statement is factually incorrect - period. His plan would in fact apply to illegals. They may not be fully covered or get "free" healthcare but that's not the claim here. The claim is from BHO that his reforms wouldn't cover illegals - no sane person looking at the "reform" debate can claim such a thing - especially since the D party won't add verification to reforms.

Like I said, all you have to do is look at the issue like a crazy person (or a rabid partisan). Illegal immigrants get literally no benefits from this. They can buy into the insurance plan, but they can already get insurance in the US so it's no change. Not one dime of taxpayer money is allowed to go to them by the text of the bill, and you would have to be truly nuts to think that people are upset about the idea of illegal immigrants subsidizing our health care (which is what they would be doing).

Basically you're saying 'if you read this bill like an autistic person, Obama is wrong.'

The nonpartisan, objective fact checking sites agree with me. Care to explain this?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

I did read the link, my post stands.

Like I said, to think that Obama's statement was untrue would require you to think about health care reform like an insane person. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats were not willing to take the incredibly irresponsible steps the Republicans were trying to make them do.

Wrong. His statement is factually incorrect - period. His plan would in fact apply to illegals. They may not be fully covered or get "free" healthcare but that's not the claim here. The claim is from BHO that his reforms wouldn't cover illegals - no sane person looking at the "reform" debate can claim such a thing - especially since the D party won't add verification to reforms.

The Bills are being written so that the maximum amount of people in this country can gain ACCESS to insurance. The government is not providing coverage to illegals. There is a difference.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: monovillage
Looks like Joe has gotten $750,000 in donations in the last 2 days. Here's the link.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...akes_in_750000_in.html

Was just going to post that. He's got a ton of support! I may even send him 500 bucks just to say "keep it up". One of the other forums I visit has a thread over 200 posts, all supporting him and giving him 100+ bucks each.

GO JOE!

You can't be a patriot when you love party more than country. How many times do you have to be told the obvious?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Psstt - you should read the link 😉

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants...the reforms I?m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." by BHO is simply untrue period.

I did read the link, my post stands.

Like I said, to think that Obama's statement was untrue would require you to think about health care reform like an insane person. Luckily for all of us, the Democrats were not willing to take the incredibly irresponsible steps the Republicans were trying to make them do.

Wrong. His statement is factually incorrect - period. His plan would in fact apply to illegals. They may not be fully covered or get "free" healthcare but that's not the claim here. The claim is from BHO that his reforms wouldn't cover illegals - no sane person looking at the "reform" debate can claim such a thing - especially since the D party won't add verification to reforms.

Verification like what? What will satisfy you? Microchip implants? Or a national ID card? :roll: