PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Nelson Joins Lieberman in Threatening to Filibuster Health Bill


Saul Good
11-19-2009, 08:03 PM
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) officially joined Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) as the second member of the Democratic Conference to threaten a filibuster of the Senate’s health care reform bill.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/40802-1.html

Direckshun
11-19-2009, 08:10 PM
Love it.

Let the games begin.

BigRedChief
11-19-2009, 08:14 PM
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) officially joined Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) as the second member of the Democratic Conference to threaten a filibuster of the Senate’s health care reform bill.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/40802-1.html yeah until he gets bribed with something.

banyon
11-19-2009, 08:17 PM
He's stuck on the Abortion language. Once they Stupak it, he's out.

KCTitus
11-19-2009, 08:32 PM
yeah until he gets bribed with something.

And that's ok because it furthers the ultimate goal?

BigRedChief
11-19-2009, 08:59 PM
And that's ok because it furthers the ultimate goal?no, it just is what it is. Under our current system politicians are bought and sold on a regular basis. Nothing untoward but just legal stuff. Got $100K for my re-elction campaign? okay, I'll take it. I got a pet peeve bill, you support it, I support yours. Doesn't matter if its a good bill or not, lets haggle.

Saul Good
11-19-2009, 09:12 PM
no, it just is what it is. Under our current system politicians are bought and sold on a regular basis. Nothing untoward but just legal stuff. Got $100K for my re-elction campaign? okay, I'll take it. I got a pet peeve bill, you support it, I support yours. Doesn't matter if its a good bill or not, lets haggle.

I think they'll put some kind of addition to the bill giving millions to states whos senators names rhyme with Ben Belson.

KCTitus
11-19-2009, 09:13 PM
no, it just is what it is. Under our current system politicians are bought and sold on a regular basis. Nothing untoward but just legal stuff. Got $100K for my re-elction campaign? okay, I'll take it. I got a pet peeve bill, you support it, I support yours. Doesn't matter if its a good bill or not, lets haggle.

Im glad you're so ambivalent about it...mind if I keep this handy for future reference?

KCTitus
11-19-2009, 09:14 PM
I think they'll put some kind of addition to the bill giving millions to states whos senators names rhyme with Ben Belson.

Or Landrieu...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Saul Good
11-19-2009, 09:18 PM
Or Landrieu...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

case in point

KCTitus
11-19-2009, 09:24 PM
case in point

But this is ok and legal like...so no big deal.

Norman Einstein
11-20-2009, 06:55 AM
Or Landrieu...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

The bad thing is that of the Senators there is not 99% of them that are objecting to the money to be given to the one state. No provisions for other states to gain the money needed to keep them from becoming bankrupt!

Virtually every state in the country is running in the red and all of those bastards/bitches in the senate are letting this shit happen with little or no objections.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2009, 07:01 AM
For a moment I thought that was my senator Nelson.

BigRedChief
11-20-2009, 07:23 AM
Im glad you're so ambivalent about it...mind if I keep this handy for future reference?I'm not ambivalent about it. It sucks, it's wrong and it needs to be changed. But, to change it , we would have to change our whole system of demoracy and how we elect our representives. And thats just not going to happen. I'm not ambivilant, I'm resigned to the fact that its not going to change unless the people really want it. And right now I don't think the American public is ready for that radical of change.

Giving $100 million in medicare benefits to Louisana to buy her vote.:cuss: That chit needs to stop.

RaiderH8r
11-20-2009, 08:06 AM
yeah until he gets bribed with something.

It cost Harry Reid $100 million to get Senator Landrieu to whore herself for the bill.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Why wouldn't they hold out? I mean since we've clearly thrown fiscal responsibility out the window, pissed on it and ran it over a couple of times why wouldn't they hold out to see how many hundreds of millions they can procure for their votes.

thecoffeeguy
11-20-2009, 09:32 AM
I hope someone filibusters this POS bill.

talastan
11-20-2009, 10:07 AM
It cost Harry Reid $100 million to get Senator Landrieu to whore herself for the bill.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Why wouldn't they hold out? I mean since we've clearly thrown fiscal responsibility out the window, pissed on it and ran it over a couple of times why wouldn't they hold out to see how many hundreds of millions they can procure for their votes.

Watch it man, you don't want to give them any ideas. ;)

Seriously though you have to admire their persistence, until you realize they are going to socialize this country. :(

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Love it.

Let the games begin.

And begin they shall, with Nelson's vote.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/sen-nelson-will-vote-yes-on-saturday.html

Story, over.

HonestChieffan
11-20-2009, 03:05 PM
yeah until he gets bribed with something.

I hear he changed his mind. Wonder what the administration promised to Nebraska to get him to cave.

BigRedChief
11-20-2009, 03:13 PM
I hear he changed his mind. Wonder what the administration promised to Nebraska to get him to cave.Louisana got $100 million

HonestChieffan
11-20-2009, 03:15 PM
That must be the going rate under Pelosi/Reid/Obama

Donger
11-20-2009, 03:16 PM
And begin they shall, with Nelson's vote.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/sen-nelson-will-vote-yes-on-saturday.html

Story, over.

Story over? He's going to vote in favor of having debate. That doesn't mean that he'll vote for the bill. Not at all.

BigRedChief
11-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Story over? He's going to vote in favor of having debate. That doesn't mean that he'll vote for the bill. Not at all.
But doesn't that mean once it comes to the floor that they don't need 60 votes, just a majority? Isn't it 60 votes to fillbuster a bill before it gets to teh floor? Don't know?

not really important anyway. When the bill comes back from conference and the house and senate vote again...thats the for the record vote

Chief Faithful
11-20-2009, 03:23 PM
It cost Harry Reid $100 million to get Senator Landrieu to whore herself for the bill.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Why wouldn't they hold out? I mean since we've clearly thrown fiscal responsibility out the window, pissed on it and ran it over a couple of times why wouldn't they hold out to see how many hundreds of millions they can procure for their votes.

Why not, money is free in DC.

Chief Faithful
11-20-2009, 03:26 PM
But doesn't that mean once it comes to the floor that they don't need 60 votes, just a majority? Isn't it 60 votes to fillbuster a bill before it gets to teh floor? Don't know?

not really important anyway. When the bill comes back from conference and the house and senate vote again...thats the for the record vote

This first vote just opens the debate. They can still filibuster cloture, which brings debate to an end so they can vote.

If they stop it now then Reid has to take the bill back to committee.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 03:50 PM
Story over? He's going to vote in favor of having debate. That doesn't mean that he'll vote for the bill. Not at all.

He doesn't need to.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 03:52 PM
It just cracks me up to hear you guys bitch about arm-twisting. Honestly. This happens. It's not right, but it happens.

And you guys knew that in 2003, when Bush pushed through Medicare Part D, which actually cost us a trillion dollars, was not deficit neutral, and of course Karl Rove gave Republicans and some Democrats so much arm twisting they practically had indian burns. Now that a Democrat administration is at the fore, all of a sudden you guys start believing this is a crime against humanity.

I'm not defending it or saying it's right, but you guys really only chose to care about this bill because it's got a (D) next to it instead of an (R). Your negligence in 2003 calls you into question.

Donger
11-20-2009, 03:53 PM
He doesn't need to.

So you don't think that Nelson will support filibuster?

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 03:53 PM
So you don't think that Nelson will support filibuster?

Nope.

Care to bet on it?

Donger
11-20-2009, 03:54 PM
I'm not defending it or saying it's right, but you guys really only chose to care about this bill because it's got a (D) next to it instead of an (R). Your negligence in 2003 calls you into question.

If these abortions had a (R) next to them, no, I wouldn't support them either.

Donger
11-20-2009, 03:54 PM
Nope.

Care to bet on it?

Sure.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 03:56 PM
If these abortions had a (R) next to them, no, I wouldn't support them either.

I just don't get why so many conservatives keep painting this as a partisan problem. Rove's tactics in 2003 would have made you blush if you think some of this shit is whacked.

You guys didn't care in 2003. But now you care.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 03:57 PM
Sure.

Signature bet, 3 months. Deal.

Donger
11-20-2009, 03:58 PM
Signature bet, 3 months. Deal.

No, a simple acknowledgment of being wrong is fine.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 04:00 PM
No, a simple acknowledgment of being wrong is fine.

I don't think you understand what a bet is.

Simple acknowledgements are supposed to happen in basic conversation, whether a bet exists or not.

If you want to back out of the bet, be my guest. But that acknowledges the truth that you throw out baseless claims, without any intention of actually believing them.

Donger
11-20-2009, 04:00 PM
I just don't get why so many conservatives keep painting this as a partisan problem. Rove's tactics in 2003 would have made you blush if you think some of this shit is whacked.

You guys didn't care in 2003. But now you care.

I'm not sure how you can equate Bush trying to fix Medicare (I wonder why such a glorious government program needed fixing in the place, mind you) and these bills. And, the Republicans in the House did make a proposal to reform health care.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 04:01 PM
That goes for every single person in this thread.

Nelson will vote for cloture.

3 months, I get your sig if I'm right. Vice versa if I'm wrong.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm not sure how you can equate Bush trying to fix Medicare (I wonder why such a glorious government program needed fixing in the place, mind you) and these bills.

1. Because these bills both cost a billion dollars for healthcare reform.

2. Both were largely voted for by the entirely common practice of bartering.

3. The CBO has said both House and Senate versions are better than deficit-neutral.

4. Part D never even pretended to be deficit neutral.

Donger
11-20-2009, 04:04 PM
I don't think you understand what a bet is.

Simple acknowledgements are supposed to happen in basic conversation, whether a bet exists or not.

If you want to back out of the bet, be my guest. But that acknowledges the truth that you throw out baseless claims, without any intention of actually believing them.

It appears that you've never heard of a gentlemen's bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_agreement

No need to thank me for the education.

Direckshun
11-20-2009, 04:06 PM
It appears that you've never heard of a gentlemen's bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%27s_agreement

No need to thank me for the education.

I am far from a gentleman.

If you want to back out of a bet with anything on the line, so be it. We just both know what it means.

Donger
11-20-2009, 04:06 PM
1. Because these bills both cost a billion dollars for healthcare reform.

2. Both were largely voted for by the entirely common practice of bartering.

3. The CBO has said both House and Senate versions are better than deficit-neutral.

4. Part D never even pretended to be deficit neutral.

1) A billion? Are you using government math?

2) I don't know what you mean.

3) Uh huh.

4) I wouldn't think so. Fixing bloated government programs is never cheap.

Donger
11-20-2009, 04:08 PM
I am far from a gentleman.

If you want to back out of a bet with anything on the line, so be it. We just both know what it means.

That sounds like a personal problem. Being correct is more important to me than you having a say in my signature.

BigRedChief
11-21-2009, 08:27 AM
So you don't think that Nelson will support filibuster?Nope he was bought off. Reid took out the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies ensuring their monopoly. At least for now.

Lincoln was a lot cheaper. She got $50 million in abstense only sex education. The only problem with that is trhat its wasted money. Abstense only education has been proven to not work and total BS.

Saul Good
11-21-2009, 09:17 AM
Nope he was bought off. Reid took out the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies ensuring their monopoly. At least for now.

Lincoln was a lot cheaper. She got $50 million in abstense only sex education. The only problem with that is trhat its wasted money. Abstense only education has been proven to not work and total BS.

It's been proven? Really? So pregnancy rates are higher in conservative suburbs than in liberal inner-cities?

BigRedChief
11-21-2009, 10:02 AM
It's been proven? Really? So pregnancy rates are higher in conservative suburbs than in liberal inner-cities?Yes, the science and facts are in, abstense only education has not reduced pre-marital sex among teenagers. And communites that have absentence only sex education have an increase in sTD's among its teenagers. Just like the teenagers signiing the "stay a virgin" pledges have increased participation in oral sex and anal sex.

You can't stop teenage hormones that are thousands of years old embeeded in our genes, no matter how many times you tell a teenager to just say no or warn them about pregnacy and STD's, they are going to make a decision to uhhhh be intimate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=623&Itemid=177

google it yourself. All the independent study's all say the same thing.