Pelosi: "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" context?

[focusonz]

**In the end no change to the bill was necessary but just a worthless piece of executive order from the Messiah.

And Stupak left in shame knowing that he broke the 2nd and 6th and 9th of Gods commandments for a society.
2 - Thou shalt not put Obama above God!
6 - Thou shalt not murder!
9 - Thou shalt not lie!**

[Bryan_Ekers]

How many different interpretations do you have on this, focus?

[Gustav]

“We know you can’t be bothered to read the thing, so the only way you can find out what’s actually in it is if we pass it”

[InterestedObserver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC
In essence it means “once the bill passes you’ll see what it actually does rather than only hearing lies about what it might do”.

@Sage_Rat

This is my reading, as well. (In a GQ sort of sense.)

Me too.

Last I heard, the legislation as passed contained roughly 200 amendments/changes requested or demanded by Republicans.

And was available on-line to be read by anyone who cared to.

Those damn Dems, ramming this secretive, partisan bill down our throats just because they had enough votes to do it. :mad:

[Marley23]

That’s enough drive-by sarcasm for one thread, focusonz. If you don’t want to debate the bill or the meaning of Pelosi’s comment, you don’t need to post here.

[focusonz]

Fully cognizant of my risk of dumping my toast jelly side down -

Sarcasm is the rhetorical device of using a characterization of something or someone in order to express contempt.

Contempt is an intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless

Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court’s authority

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.

A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others

Pelosi used the term “controversy” posters replaced this word with “lie”
So by definition, the general tenor of the thread was sarcasm.

post #3 sarcasm:

@YogSosoth

It sounds like the Dems knew exactly what was in the bill but their efforts were stymied by people who have been lied to about what the bill contains. So Pelosi says essentially “There are good things in the bill, once we pass it you’ll find out”

post #4 sarcasm:

@DigitalC

In essence it means “once the bill passes you’ll see what it actually does rather than only hearing lies about what it might do”.

My sarcastic posts #6 and #7
post #8 sarcasm:

@The_Facts

It means “I can’t be bothered to explain why water is wet to a bunch of GOP troglidytes who don’t give a shit about other people. You and I know this may be tweaked afterwards, but right now we’re in a political fight and we can’t allow the teabaggers to win by dividing us”

My sarcastic posts #12
post #13 sarcasm:

@DanBlather

God damned democracy. I hate it when our elected Representatives can pass a bill with only 60% of the vote. **Isn’t it time we gave Fox veto power **so this won’t happen again?

My sarcastic posts #14
post #17 sarcasm:

@Bosstone

And now for a post with equivalent factual content:
Republicans eat babies with a side of puppy.

post #19 sarcasm:

@Sage_Rat

This is my reading [sic “lie”], as well. (In a GQ sort of sense.)

post #23 sarcasm:

@Gustav

“We know you can’t be bothered to read the thing, so the only way you can find out what’s actually in it is if we pass it”

My last post #21 was an observation not sarcasm along the same vane as Strassia

@Strassia

There is also the fact that at any given time the proposed bill could have been changed by amendments. Heck, it changed slightly after it was passed the first time.

Sarcasm statistics
Doper planet - 8 Sarcasms
focusonz - 4 Sarcasms

I claim foul procounsul.
focusonz should be permitted 4 more Sarcasms.
attend focusonz’s final remark in debating Pelosi’s statement:

.

@nachtmusick

Answers #'s 3-9 demonstrate why politicians can’t afford to be honest when they speak in public.

@Bryan_Ekers

How many different interpretations do you have on this, focus?

If we assume that nachtmusic’s statement regarding politicians honesty is a scale from completely honest to totally dishonest then number of interpretations of Pelosi’s statement approaches infinity.

If it pleases the modder, It looks like my toast fell jelly side up.

[Marley23]

No, that’s not going to happen: you’re comparing eight posts (some of which were sarcastic, some weren’t) by eight different people to four from you alone. Either contribute something to the debate or participate in another thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

If I may hazard a guess, the text of the bill isn’t secret - it’s there for anyone willing to spend a weekend plowing through it. What the American public will “find out” is how the law will be applied in their personal cases, and that’s dependent on any number of factors.

Pelosi should have chosen a less ammunition-laden statement, but I don’t see anything furtive going on.

[Voyager]

Before the bill passed, it was pretty fluid, and it was hard to state with confidence that any particular clause would be in the final bill. In addition, even things which were under discussion could be denied by the Republicans and their fellow travelers, who in their paranoid delusions might say that the amendment adding the hammer and sickle to the stars and stripes would be snuck in at the last minute. She probably also thought that the lies would stop after the bill was signed, but she was wrong, since the GOP accepted the will of the people about as much as John Wilkes Booth accepted the Union victory.

[Jas09]

All of these snarky responses confuse me (maybe they shouldn’t, as they pretty much confirm what Pelosi’s obvious point was).

The context is right there in my post. “… away from the fog of the controversy”. It was Pelosi’s contention that the controversy surrounding the bill was obscuring it’s actual effects, and that after it was passed and the effects were felt, people would better understand what it actually contained.

I really don’t see much debate here - the entire speech, as well as the relevant quote, was posted in my original post. Does someone contend that she meant something else? How do you justify that interpretation?

[DigitalC]

There was absolutely no sarcasm in my post Focusonz.

[ExTank]

@Marley23

No, that’s not going to happen: you’re comparing eight posts (some of which were sarcastic, some weren’t) by eight different people to four from you alone. Either contribute something to the debate or participate in another thread.

IOW: “It’s okay when a lefty like Der Trihs does it; when a righty does it, we don’t want you here.”

[Marley23]

@ExTank

IOW: “It’s okay when a lefty like Der Trihs does it; when a righty does it, we don’t want you here.”

I wouldn’t have said anything about one drive-by. After four of them it’s not too Hitleresque to ask him to contribute something more substantial to the discussion.

[gonzomax]

Whats in the bill? It has been available for reading on line for a long time. How can anybody pretend it is a secret?
But

1. If you have a pre-existing condition you can not be denied health coverage.
   Does that upset you? Do you think insurance companies should be able to claim you have a pre-exising condition and you have to fight them to pay what they were contracted to. They take the premiums, don’t they?
2. Young adults can stay on parents plans until 26. Does that seem unreasonable to you?
3. No lifetime limits on coverage. That of course means that if you , your wife or kids get deathly sick, the insurance company can not just decide that they will quit paying after they reach a point they made up.
4. Seniors affected by the doughnut hole get a 250 dollar rebate.
5. Seniors get a free yearly wellness checkup. No copay or deductible for this visit. That of course is horrible if you are against preventative medicine. Otherwise it is logical and would benefit the oldsters by letting them know what is wrong and how they can take care of it.
   6.New health care plans must include free preventative care.
   Can you understand how that could save money?
6. Insurance companies can not drop you if you get sick.
   What a radical concept.
   Small businesses get a TAX CUT to help pay for health insurance costs. That is if they have 10 employees or less.
7. Insurance companies have to spend 80-85 percent of revenue on health care. Not executive salaries and advertising. .Would that bother you to.
   All of this and more has been available of line. No secrets.