If the right cares so much about the "bribes" to get to 60 votes

[pocketfullofshells]

just a thought...since some seem to be crying about how the Dems gave some states to much to get there vote on the health care bill...to get it to 60 votes needed to have a vote ( but only needs 50 votes to pass) could they not have shut up stoped crying and voted to let a vote be held on the bill and voted no agianst it...thus saving the dems from having to try to get those last 2 votes ext? end would have been we still had a vote, may the bill was better, and it passes just as it would have anyway....

just a thought.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

For me and my frustration with the 'constant squawkers about TRANSPANCY' {where's the transparency } you would think that since they are out voted by the shear mass amount of the opposition that they would at least try to meet somewhere in the middle...instead of acting like the constant DEAD WEIGHT and constant 'SCREECHING MONKEY' noises that has been going on for the past {what 6 months}.

But no, we get the mental dribble of crude remarks about Senator Bird and the frightful disrespectful way in which some republicans speak about that man {as feeble as he is} Will pull his fortitude/backbone into chambers to vote for what he believes in...despite the verbal assault upon his good NAME!

HOLY BAT CRAP...just think about the options that some greater thinking Republican could have achieved for their state had they decided to 'MAN UP' and become equality thinking!

 

[dogtowner]

just a thought...since some seem to be crying about how the Dems gave some states to much to get there vote on the health care bill...to get it to 60 votes needed to have a vote ( but only needs 50 votes to pass) could they not have shut up stoped crying and voted to let a vote be held on the bill and voted no agianst it...thus saving the dems from having to try to get those last 2 votes ext? end would have been we still had a vote, may the bill was better, and it passes just as it would have anyway....

just a thought.

if its such a good thing, why are you having to buy your own seats ?

I'm thinking the other 40 or more who didn't get stroked are the ones really upset right now.

 

[chestnut]

if its such a good thing, why are you having to buy your own seats ?

I'm thinking the other 40 or more who didn't get stroked are the ones really upset right now.

The dems had to buy their own off because the bill sucks and everyone knows it.

Turning over more responsibility to the inept govt cronies is never a good idea. Look how the Obama admin handled the flu shots h1n1, or cash 4 clunkers. Very very small in comparison to the countries health care deliver system.


Nope, the dems could not do it without buying votes, when they have the full majority.

LMAO

 

[dogtowner]

The dems had to buy their own off because the bill sucks and everyone knows it.

Turning over more responsibility to the inept govt cronies is never a good idea. Look how the Obama admin handled the flu shots h1n1, or cash 4 clunkers. Very very small in comparison to the countries health care deliver system.


Nope, the dems could not do it without buying votes, when they have the full majority.

LMAO

every since the government took over the flu shot business its been a fiasco. from QC issues in foreign suppliers to the myriad of ones with the swine this year, nothing but trouble. I'm glad i never fell into the flu shot trap, a complete waste of time and money. they seldom even guess at the right mix of flues to include.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

if its such a good thing, why are you having to buy your own seats ?

I'm thinking the other 40 or more who didn't get stroked are the ones really upset right now.

Oh, finally a rational question; albeit one that has been asked and answered in multiple posts around just this one small community forum...but well worth repeating too! It's the status quo for how this democracy has worked since the days of yore when the founding fathers all sat around and mulled over the hows & why fores; you scratch my back on this issue and I'll lean over a little more to meet you half way on your issue. SHOCK/SURPRISE/ASTONISHMENT...you aren't that naive to think that it doesn't work that way when the Republicans owned the House & Senate...surely NOT

 

[dogtowner]

Oh, finally a rational question; albeit one that has been asked and answered in multiple posts around just this one small community forum...but well worth repeating too! It's the status quo for how this democracy has worked since the days of yore when the founding fathers all sat around and mulled over the hows & why fores; you scratch my back on this issue and I'll lean over a little more to meet you half way on your issue. SHOCK/SURPRISE/ASTONISHMENT...you aren't that naive to think that it doesn't work that way when the Republicans owned the House & Senate...surely NOT

There has always been this on points of policy, sure. Just buying it with Chinese money seems kind of like common whoring. Especially in Nelson's case where he was literally selling his soul. His constituants are not amused as you have probably heard. 30 point drop in polling. Hope they deliver on the romise of a nice job after his lone term.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

if its such a good thing, why are you having to buy your own seats ?

I'm thinking the other 40 or more who didn't get stroked are the ones really upset right now.

Because as a party there are many very left and many very moderate people who are also politicans who need to be reElected and thus play politics...also they know if they can hold out, they can get more for there state , so why not get more for your people if you can? Your very ignorant if you think its somehow a Dem issues here...how the system works and always has and always will...Same thing would happen if it was to weak and wattered down, you may need to do things to get the far left to want to vote for it ...Had it come down to a simple majoritity vote, and non of the bull crap that makes it so you need 60% to agree to a vote..it would have been far more liberal, a public option, and in my view better....But fact is you need the 60 so if 59 and 60th vote want stuff, you may have to give in to get anything...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The dems had to buy their own off because the bill sucks and everyone knows it.

Turning over more responsibility to the inept govt cronies is never a good idea. Look how the Obama admin handled the flu shots h1n1, or cash 4 clunkers. Very very small in comparison to the countries health care deliver system.


Nope, the dems could not do it without buying votes, when they have the full majority.

LMAO

I agree it does suck, but its better then what he have now...and I would have been for a public option or even single payer system..so this reform is weak I agree.....but at least there is some reform...unlike 8 years of the Bush White house who only expanded some medicaid ( of course they did not offset the costs of that....where as this one based on CBO reports is actuly debt reducing over time)

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Because as a party there are many very left and many very moderate people who are also politicans who need to be reElected and thus play politics...also they know if they can hold out, they can get more for there state , so why not get more for your people if you can? Your very ignorant if you think its somehow a Dem issues here...how the system works and always has and always will...Same thing would happen if it was to weak and wattered down, you may need to do things to get the far left to want to vote for it ...Had it come down to a simple majoritity vote, and non of the bull crap that makes it so you need 60% to agree to a vote..it would have been far more liberal, a public option, and in my view better....But fact is you need the 60 so if 59 and 60th vote want stuff, you may have to give in to get anything...

Why do we waste our time/effort trying to re-educate these 'selective readers' to the common knowledge of the way our elected officials have operated since the original group that challenged the CROWN of ENGLAND...do we need to keep restating the obvious just because they either can't do the research or that they just can't absorb the rather simplistic way in which our democracy works...hmmm

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Why do we waste our time/effort trying to re-educate these 'selective readers' to the common knowledge of the way our elected officials have operated since the original group that challenged the CROWN of ENGLAND...do we need to keep restating the obvious just because they either can't do the research or that they just can't absorb the rather simplistic way in which our democracy works...hmmm

because for every few hundred of the drones you find someone that actuly listens, has good ideas even if you don't agree, and you may actually make headway with talking 2....while few in numbers they do exist on this site, heck I even convinced Pandora to change her mind on a issue once...

 

[dogtowner]

Because as a party there are many very left and many very moderate people who are also politicans who need to be reElected and thus play politics...also they know if they can hold out, they can get more for there state , so why not get more for your people if you can? Your very ignorant if you think its somehow a Dem issues here...how the system works and always has and always will...Same thing would happen if it was to weak and wattered down, you may need to do things to get the far left to want to vote for it ...Had it come down to a simple majoritity vote, and non of the bull crap that makes it so you need 60% to agree to a vote..it would have been far more liberal, a public option, and in my view better....But fact is you need the 60 so if 59 and 60th vote want stuff, you may have to give in to get anything...

No, not a strictly dem issue and more's the pity. So much for the Constitution. Hell, it was Republican (Whig) A.Lincoln that kickstarted this banality.

However it is a liberal idea that one would want to "get more for" their whatever jurisdiction.

 

[dogtowner]

Why do we waste our time/effort trying to re-educate these 'selective readers' to the common knowledge of the way our elected officials have operated since the original group that challenged the CROWN of ENGLAND...do we need to keep restating the obvious just because they either can't do the research or that they just can't absorb the rather simplistic way in which our democracy works...hmmm

If you think what passes for Congress today bears any resemblance to "the original group" you really need to consider reading up on their history.

I would prefer to see more "you lie" and a lot less closed door cronyism.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No, not a strictly dem issue and more's the pity. So much for the Constitution. Hell, it was Republican (Whig) A.Lincoln that kickstarted this banality.

However it is a liberal idea that one would want to "get more for" their whatever jurisdiction.

yes its very liberal to represent your own district and do what you can to get them the best best deal? Thats called Politics....grow up, its how it always has been and always will...

 

[top gun]

because for every few hundred of the drones you find someone that actually listens, has good ideas even if you don't agree, and you may actually make headway with talking 2....while few in numbers they do exist on this site, heck I even convinced Pandora to change her mind on a issue once...

It is important what you do... although I also understand ASPCA's frustration.

The fact is when the Progressives stop talking then that the only noise in the room is from the Right... all too often the farthest out Lunatic Right.

Providing information and debunking disinformation is most important not only because fence sitters & Independents hear your case but even the other side knows you'll call them out on a lie publicly in a pair of seconds!

People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.