Senate GOP in Wisconsin Order Police to Take AWOL Dems Into Custody

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They can't prevent the bill from passing. Their job is to show up and vote "no" - that's all they can do.

It's called democracy.

Not really. Democracy would be to have a sweeping change like this one go through rigorous debate rather than slipping it into a budget repair bill despite the fact that it has nothing to do with repairing the budget. What's needed to fix the budget - the financial concessions from public employees - are available and have been for some time now. Wanna fix the budget? Do it. It's all in Hosni Walker's hands.

[웃 910]

Hosni Walker

[Zero Sum 305]

Actually, they did. Which is why it ended up passing through reconciliation.

Facts can maim the amnesic.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Actually, they did. Which is why it ended up passing through reconciliation.

Actually the reps and dems both did. The only thing bi-partisan about it was the opposition to it. Lets not rewrite history here.

Facts can maim the amnesic.

Better check your memory then.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually the reps and dems both did. The only thing bi-partisan about it was the opposition to it. Lets not rewrite history here.

The PPACA passed the Senate by a vote of 60–39. Unless there was a Republican voting for it, it would seem that all 60 Democrats supported it while the other side uniformly opposed what is essentially their very own 1993 health care reform proposal.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The PPACA passed the Senate by a vote of 60–39. Unless there was a Republican voting for it, it would seem that all 60 Democrats supported it while the other side uniformly opposed what is essentially their very own 1993 health care reform proposal.

The dems were the reason it got dragged out. They were also the reason so many "gifts" were written into it. But you do prove my point, there was no fillibuster since the reps didn't have the votes to stop it. So either the dems were joining in with the reps in a fillibuster or there was no fillibuster. Which is it?

[Zero Sum 305]

Actually the reps and dems both did. The only thing bi-partisan about it was the opposition to it. Lets not rewrite history here.

Better check your memory then.

I see what you did there.

The PPACA passed the Senate by a vote of 60–39. Unless there was a Republican voting for it, it would seem that all 60 Democrats supported it while the other side uniformly opposed what is essentially their very own 1993 health care reform proposal.

Facts can maim the amnesic.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Facts can maim the amnesic.

Yes they can. The fact is there was no republican fillibuster. That fact doesn't seem to compute with some people.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yes they can. The fact is there was no republican fillibuster. That fact doesn't seem to compute with some people.

Correct. There was an obvious fear of a guaranteed filibuster by the GOP. Which was bypassed by other means, due to the GOPs lack of interest in legislating. Jog that memory.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Correct. There was an obvious fear of a guaranteed filibuster by the GOP. Which was bypassed by other means, due to the GOPs lack of interest in legislating. Jog that memory.

I think the problem was buying off enough Democrat Senators, to get something passed in the Senate. Problem was, once Reid started down that path, there was no end to it. The House didn't just pass the Senate bill with all its flaws, they had to pass the bill full of the sweetheart deals under reconciliation rules, just to avoid going to conference and getting nothing in the end. Worst case of incompetence among Democrats since the 1972 National Convention in Miami Beach.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The fact is there was no republican fillibuster.

You need to read up on the legislative process. Again, the Senate passed the initial bill 60-39. The House had a bill that was different. While both needed to be synced up, the Dems lost one of the 60 seats in the Senate. As a result, the final bill was passed through reconciliation. The only reason that would have occurred is because the GOP would not allow the measure to come to a vote in the Senate - via a process commonly known as the filibuster. But do continue to live in that fantasy bubble of yours where that which occurred in the real world simply didn't happen.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Actually, they did. Which is why it ended up passing through reconciliation.

No, they did not. It PASSED without a filibuster but it PASSED with changes demanded by DEMOCRAT Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska. It THEN Should have been reconciled and SENT BACK to the Senate. In the meantime, between the Senate PASSING the bill without filibuster, and the reconciliation, the DEMs lost Kennedy's seat ( !!!!) Which WOULD have been enough to support a filibuster. The DEMs THEN found a way around sending it back to the Senate to AVOID a filibuster. A filibuster never occured.

So, rather than "reconcile" and send it back as should have been done, the DEM controlled house simply "agreed" to the Senate version to avoid any RISK of a filibuster. They also KNEW they were about to get their clocks cleaned in the November election and needed to pass SOMETHING fast. They (DEMs) had delayed it as long as they could and packed as much greasy pork as possible into it.

Thank goodness they were too stupid to include a severability clause, eh?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You need to read up on the legislative process. Again, the Senate passed the initial bill 60-39. The House had a bill that was different. While both needed to be synced up, the Dems lost one of the 60 seats in the Senate. As a result, the final bill was passed through reconciliation. The only reason that would have occurred is because the GOP would not allow the measure to come to a vote in the Senate - via a process commonly known as the filibuster. But do continue to live in that fantasy bubble of yours where that which occurred in the real world simply didn't happen.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. THERE WAS NO FILIBUSTER! There COULD have been one IF the DEMs had brought it back to the Senate. They found a way around it and THERE WAS NO FILIBUSTER. Stop trying to change history!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Correct. There was an obvious fear of a guaranteed filibuster by the GOP. Which was bypassed by other means, due to the GOPs lack of interest in legislating. Jog that memory.

THERE WAS NO FILIBUSTER. Big dog said there was. There WAS NOT.

ALL and ANY delays in passing the bill were because of DEMOCRATS who COULD have passed it in March of 2009, maybe even February.

Does anyone here that accidentlaly voted for Bush instead of Gore understand the difference between "they filibustered the bill" and "they would have filibustered the bill" ???? Anyone?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The PPACA passed the Senate by a vote of 60–39. Unless there was a Republican voting for it, it would seem that all 60 Democrats supported it while the other side uniformly opposed what is essentially their very own 1993 health care reform proposal.

So what? 39 votes cannot stop ANY bill in the Senante and cannot support a filibuster. If the bill was not passed in February of 2009, the ONLY reason is the Dems. The Republicans, From January 2009 until January 2011, had NO ability to stop ANY legislation by ANY means in either chamber and Obama was willing to sign anything. WHO is really "the party of NO" ???