From the increasingly stretched lips of our Speaker of the House of Congress, Mrs. Satan, also known as Nancy Pelosi:
“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
The bill she’s referring to is of course the health-care-takeover bill that President Obeyme and his fellow Marxists have been trying to force upon us for about a year now.
The question I have for any Democrat voters reading this is this: Do you support this idea that we have to sign a bill into law before allowing us to know what’s in it? Is there a Democrat voter out there who can admit that this is pure corruption?
Comments (23)
I’m sure they support it’s being bassed before WE can find out what’s in it.
Wow. Quite a quote.
Sad that you have to edit the quote to mock it.
@musterion99 -
Can you believe the gall they have?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
@musterion99 -
Not what she actually said. She said we have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in it outside of the fog of controversy. In other words so the bullshit politics go away and people see the actual policy.
@agnophilo -
Except I didn’t. The only thing I edited was the bracketed “healthcare.” In the original press conference she was giving, or whatever it was, it was understood that she was talking about the healthcare bill. Here, on Xanga, though–without any context–I needed to explain that it was about the healthcare bill. The other thing I omitted from the quote was the word “but” at the very beginning. So, no, this is not an edited quote. It’s a shame your censored liberal media told you that, and it’s a shame you fell for it.
And you can’t say that a bill has been urgently forced upon us before we get the chance to read it… for the past year.
@agnophilo -
That part about the “fog of controversy” came after that sentence. And it serves no purpose. Her point was, “You Republican Congressmen can read the bill AFTER you vote for it.”
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
Yes, you did. And I got it from the actual transcript of her remarks on speaker.gov. You put a period where… the rest of the sentence was. That’s editing.
@agnophilo -
The bill was just written by Obama. It hasn’t been out for a year. There have been multiple bills, yes, and each one has been given an impossibly small amount of time to be read by Republicans who were locked out of rooms while Democrats met behind those locked doors to write the bills. They didn’t allow the Republicans in on the process at all. Then, when the Dems finished writing it, they said to the Reps, “Okay, you have two days to read all two-thousand pages.” It’s against the law to vote on a bill without reading it first.
@agnophilo -
The site I got it from put a period between the two sentences. Whether there is a comma or a period doesn’t matter. What she said after remains the same whether there is a period or a comma, and the meaning of what she said is exactly what it sounds like: “Vote for it, and THEN you can learn what’s in it.” Which is against the law, by the way.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
No, it wasn’t. It was the other half of the sentence. And you think they’re trying to get republican votes? Seriously? You just said it was a press conference, now you’re saying she was addressing republican congressmen.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
Almost everything in that is false. First of all if it was illegal to vote for a bill without reading it, most of congress would be in prison. And second, the president didn’t write anything – if you think that then you have to learn civics. So far as backroom deals that was reconciling the two bills that passed each house of congress and now are still going through multiple votes to be modified before final passage.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
No, that isn’t what she meant. And if you think so you’re an idiot who watches too much glenn beck.
@agnophilo -
And it HAS been “urgently forced forced upon us” because each bill that has been written was only given a small amount of time to be read. Also, they refused to put the bills online (except for two of them) because “it would be too hard.” Bull shit. They didn’t want to put it online because of the public outcry over the FIRST bill, which they DID put online because it’s NOT “too hard” as they said it was. And when only 25% of America WANTS the current bill to be passed–when 75% of America wants the bill to be entirely rewritten and/or edited–Congress has NO right to pass it. They have ZERO right to pass a bill that only 25% of America supports. What this bill is is exactly this: Some people can afford to decent place to live. Other people have to live in the projects. Because that’s “unfair,” EVERYBODY has to live in public housing. That’s the perfect analogy for this bill. It makes everybody’s health insurance shit. And you know how Obama is always whining about private insurance companies denying medical coverage to people? Guess what company denies the most coverage. Guess. Medicare. Medicare denies TWICE as many medical cases as the most-denying private insurance company. Medicare is GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE, and they deny TWICE as many claims as the leading denier or private companies.
@agnophilo -
I hate Glenn Beck, by the way.
@agnophilo -
I said “press conference (or whatever it was).” I don’t know where she was when she said it, but she was talking about Republicans.
It actually is illegal to vote on a bill without reading it. Just because Democrat Congressmen insist that that’s how it should be done, it’s still illegal. And just because people don’t get arrested for it doesn’t mean it’s not illegal. Bill Clinton lied under oath, and liberals applauded him instead of impeaching him. He also allowed his biggest campaign donor to sell our missile technology to the Chinese, but that’s another issue. You Democrats…I don’t get you. If you can’t win an argument, you resort to name-calling. And you use excuses like, “Well, every politician lies, so it’s okay.”
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
No. Medicare denies payment to hospitals at a higher rate, but reimburses the patient for the bills and then bills the hospital if the hospital performed un-necessary procedures. That is the most common reason for denial of payment in medicare according to the study you’re referencing.
And an argument from popularity. Congress doesn’t have the right to vote against the majority? Since when did we stop being a republic and become a democracy?
If you ask people why they don’t like the idea of healthcare reform 9 times out of ten it’s some madeup bullshit like what you spout (or I should say mindlessly repeat) on your blog.
But yeah, it’s funny that you claim that no one knows what’s in the healthcare bill, then tell me you know what’s in it and that it’s going to force everyone to metaphorically live in the projects. As if that means anything.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
I’d never guess from your blog. You sound like him.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
No, she wasn’t.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
Quote the part where I condoned voting for legislation without reading it first. I contradicted your bogus claim that it was illegal, I didn’t say it was ethical. Nor did I say it’s okay if a democrat does it. In fact I said the exact opposite of that.
You have a problem with addressing peoples’ comments without first distorting them into something less reasonable.
@agnophilo - There needs to be full disclosure before it’s passed or even voted on. Ah yes, I still owe you a response don’t I? I’ll have to dig up that file where I was typing the response.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex -
There has been.
@agnophilo -
Your censored media really has done a number on you. Medicare does deny coverage. And hospitals wouldn’t need to perform unnecessary procedures if doctors weren’t afraid of getting sued. They perform those procedures to cover their butts because people go hog-wild when it comes to suing hospitals over stupid crap.
Congress has the right to vote against the American people. But that’s corrupt and absolutely unacceptable.
We don’t know EVERYTHING that’s in it. It’s a monster of a bill. The Constitution is written on one sheet of paper, and this thing is, what, 1,000, 2,000 pages long? That goes to show you how in control of our lives these people want to be.
I’m curious what you think about the unconstitutional mandate to purchase the government’s insurance, even if you decide you don’t want to use it. According to the constitution, they don’t have the right mandate this insurance. But do you think it’s conducive to freedom to tell us, “You HAVE to pay for our insurance whether you use it or not, and if you don’t, you will be fined. If you do not pay the fine, you will be imprisoned.” Isn’t that tyrannical of them? That’s like something out of the USSR, man.
@BecauseIamDonnieDarko -
“Your censored media really has done a number on you.”
I find that amusing since you repeat conservative talking points below.
“Medicare does deny coverage.”
Every insurance program, public and private does. And denying an insurance claim isn’t the same thing as denying coverage. Insurance claims are denied for being duplicates, for not being filled out properly, for being fraudulent, for requesting reimbursement for experimental treatments that aren’t medically accepted and any number of things.
“And hospitals wouldn’t need to perform unnecessary procedures if doctors weren’t afraid of getting sued. They perform those procedures to cover their butts because people go hog-wild when it comes to suing hospitals over stupid crap.”
Yes, that is a problem. However just as “drill baby drill” was sold as the silver bullet solution to the energy crisis when it would barely begin to address the problem, tort reform would address about 1% of the problem of the rising cost of healthcare.
“Congress has the right to vote against the American people. But that’s corrupt and absolutely unacceptable.”
The american people are idiots. If what our representatives voted was determined by public opinion polling then we would be a democracy, not a republic. There’s a reason we’re not a democracy, democracies suck. They were also called mob-ocracies and they were completely chaotic and self-destructive. Most people are not expert enough to have the right answers on questions about education, economics, healthcare, constitutional law etc. This is why we have people whose job it is to weigh our concerns against the advice of experts and ideally arrive at an honest conclusion and vote accordingly. I’m not going to say this process isn’t corrupt, it is. But in principle at least it’s a good process. And the ability of people to vilify healthcare reform as a communist plot to kill old people or destroy medicare to scare them into not supporting a bill has nothing to do with the merits of that legislation. If it did we’d be a democracy.
“We don’t know EVERYTHING that’s in it. It’s a monster of a bill.”
So go read it.
“The Constitution is written on one sheet of paper,”
No, it isn’t. The original one was, but we have a case-law system which means the constitution is several libraries full of court decisions.
“and this thing is, what, 1,000, 2,000 pages long? That goes to show you how in control of our lives these people want to be.”
That is stupid. Any legislation attempting to change the way we pay for health insurance is going to be complicated because health insurance is complicated. I’ve read big sections of the bill and most of it is precise definitions for terms and things like that. Law cannot be ambiguous. But yeah, to criticize a piece of legislation because of it’s size and not it’s contents is pretty silly.
“I’m curious what you think about the unconstitutional mandate to purchase the government’s insurance, even if you decide you don’t want to use it. According to the constitution, they don’t have the right mandate this insurance.”
The constitution was written in the 1700s, it doesn’t make mention of ICBMs and nuclear weapons and tax shelters and lead-based-paint either. It doesn’t talk about healthcare or health insurance because universal access to exorcisms and blood letting weren’t a priority.
“But do you think it’s conducive to freedom to tell us, “You HAVE to pay for our insurance whether you use it or not, and if you don’t, you will be fined. If you do not pay the fine, you will be imprisoned.” Isn’t that tyrannical of them? That’s like something out of the USSR, man.”
No, that is nonsense. It’s illegal to not pay your taxes, and our system was designed to give us taxation with representation, which we have. If you don’t like the tax rates, vote for someone who shares your views and get them changed. If you don’t like how the taxes are spent, do likewise. But to characterize any use of tax dollars as tyranny is just stupid, as is characterizing tax evasion the same way.