Frist sneaks pharmaceutical provision into DEFENSE Appropriations Bill

[alaricthegoth]

AARP application in the mail just yesterday.
they know where you live…(or they data mine supermarket courtesy card records for prune juice purchases…)

[bup]

@Weirddave

Then I respectfully submit that you are stupid. There is nothing partisan in the statement “It’s wrong no matter which side of the aisle does it”, no matyter how many times you say that there is. You seem to be the only one left who is insisting on reading not what I wrote, but what you assume that I wrote. Unfortunately for you, in this case, that makes you dead wrong.

I don’t even know why I’m bothering. You have addressed not the issue that was put to you, but the one you wanted to address.

If a poster, say RT, says a statement X, let’s say, “Please explain how you can justify attacking the Democrats specifically in a state senate for employing a parliamentary procedure to stop a bill from getting a vote, but will not attack the Republicans specifically for putting an 11th-hour rider on a bill that had nothing to do with the bill.” Now let’s say you keep saying a statement Y, oh, let’s go with, “It’s wrong no matter which side of the aisle does it.”

Y is true, and Y is non-partisan, but does not answer X. X is about the different ways you reacted to two situations. And no matter how many times you repeat it, Y will not address X. You may as well post over and over that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. In fact, you’d be better off posting that, because that statement would not give the appearance you were intentionally avoiding answering the question put to you, but rather that the hamsters had accidentally put your post in the wrong thread. Several times.

Now I expect you to answer this with something that you want my post to be about, rather than what it is about.

[RTFirefly]

@RTFirefly

If one poster says X, and someone responds by saying Y which makes no sense to that poster, normal procedure is to respond by saying, “You said, Y, but that doesn’t make any sense because…” rather than simply saying X all over again.

When several people say Y, and the first poster just keeps on repeating X, then “Lalalalala” is generally the correct interpretation.

@Weirddave

There is nothing partisan in the statement “It’s wrong no matter which side of the aisle does it”, no matyter how many times you say that there is.

As bup has already pointed out, your ‘rebuttal’ has nothing to do with what I said.

You seem to be the only one left who is insisting on reading not what I wrote, but what you assume that I wrote. Unfortunately for you, in this case, that makes you dead wrong.

Time to turn off the irony meter; it’s shorted out yet again.

[Weirddave]

@bup

I don’t even know why I’m bothering. You have addressed not the issue that was put to you, but the one you wanted to address.

If a poster, say RT, says a statement X, let’s say, “Please explain how you can justify attacking the Democrats specifically in a state senate for employing a parliamentary procedure to stop a bill from getting a vote, but will not attack the Republicans specifically for putting an 11th-hour rider on a bill that had nothing to do with the bill.” Now let’s say you keep saying a statement Y, oh, let’s go with, “It’s wrong no matter which side of the aisle does it.”

Y is true, and Y is non-partisan, but does not answer X. X is about the different ways you reacted to two situations. And no matter how many times you repeat it, Y will not address X. You may as well post over and over that the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. In fact, you’d be better off posting that, because that statement would not give the appearance you were intentionally avoiding answering the question put to you, but rather that the hamsters had accidentally put your post in the wrong thread. Several times.

Now I expect you to answer this with something that you want my post to be about, rather than what it is about.

Well bup, in the Maryland case, Speaker Busch used an extraordinary measure to shut down debate and prevent a vote, a pretty much unique occurrence. What Mr. Frist did is simply business as usual in the U.S. Congress.(One deserved a specific condemnation in a thread, and one is endemic of a larger problem) You (and someone, say RT) can insist on equating the two all you want, but they are very different circumstances, and if you can’t understand the simple and obvious differences between the two…well…hey, not my fault you are so dense.

[RTFirefly]

@Weirddave

Well bup, in the Maryland case, Speaker Busch used an extraordinary measure to shut down debate and prevent a vote, a pretty much unique occurrence. What Mr. Frist did is simply business as usual in the U.S. Congress.(One deserved a specific condemnation in a thread, and one is endemic of a larger problem) You (and someone, say RT) can insist on equating the two all you want, but they are very different circumstances, and if you can’t understand the simple and obvious differences between the two…well…hey, not my fault you are so dense.

Are we getting a bit recursive here?

Not only does this have nothing to do with

@RTFirefly

If one poster says X, and someone responds by saying Y which makes no sense to that poster, normal procedure is to respond by saying, “You said, Y, but that doesn’t make any sense because…” rather than simply saying X all over again.

When several people say Y, and the first poster just keeps on repeating X, then “Lalalalala” is generally the correct interpretation.

but by its repetition of the same statement, over and over again, rather than answering the response in a meaningful manner, it’s an example of the principle I set out.

Weirddave, you’re becoming an infinite loop of obtuseness. There are some infinite loops that interest me, but that isn’t one of them. Bye.

[Blalron]

@Weirddave

Well bup, in the Maryland case, Speaker Busch used an extraordinary measure to shut down debate and prevent a vote, a pretty much unique occurrence. What Mr. Frist did is simply business as usual in the U.S. Congress.

Do you know of any other examples of the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader unilaterally adding a completely unrelated provision into a major bill hours before it was to be voted on? That is even more undemocratic because the other members of Congress weren’t aware they were voting on the pharmacy thing. If it would be so easy to pass all on its lonesome, why did it need to be snuck in under the cover of night?

In the Maryland case, the Speaker likely had the votes to win but decided not to do a public tally of the votes. He settled the issue in another way. The will of the majority of the legislature was probably not thwarted here.

I’m also pretty sure that shutting down a legislative house early isn’t as extraordinary as you think but I don’t have any cites handy at the moment.

[bup]

@Weirddave

Well bup, in the Maryland case, Speaker Busch used an extraordinary measure to shut down debate and prevent a vote, a pretty much unique occurrence. What Mr. Frist did is simply business as usual in the U.S. Congress.(One deserved a specific condemnation in a thread, and one is endemic of a larger problem) You (and someone, say RT) can insist on equating the two all you want, but they are very different circumstances, and if you can’t understand the simple and obvious differences between the two…well…hey, not my fault you are so dense.

Now I’ve seen your rebuttal in the other thread, which I agree addresses the issue. You’re wrong that it’s a unique occurrence - preventing votes is also business as usual in the US Congress. Dole, Gingrich, Lott, and Hastert have all run their legislative bodies like that.

But that’s either ignorance, which is not partisan, or you see preventing votes in the US Congress as different for some technicality, which is partisan.