Debate for National Health Care Starts on the House Floor @ 1030 EST / 0730PST 11/7

[low preference guy]

If I had two options: get shot in the face or get punched in the face, I would choose to get punched in the face.

I would C) Dodge and shoot the bastard in the foot.

The rules of Congress don't give Paul an analogous third option. If he votes differently, we increases the chances (which are already almost guaranteed) of getting the Democrats version.

Well... maybe Paul did have the option to go and punch Pelosi in the face... but he is too much of a gentleman to do that.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think he voted for the amendment because it wasnt as bad. However, he still would have voted against the Bill.

OK this makes sense. The Boehner amendment was NOT the bill, it was an amendment TO the bill. Amend the bill to make it as least damaging as possible so if it passes (against your vote) then less damage will be done.

This actually makes sense.

If the Boehner amendment had been a BILL, then RP would vote "no" but since it was just an Amendment to change the Pelosi Bill into a less damaging form, then vote "yes" on the amendment but "no" on the bill whether the amendment passes or not.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

That way if the bill DOES pass you voted for it to be less damaging, even if you voted against passage itself.

 

[reagle]

Boehner amendment Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 176 - 258
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll885.xml

Stupak amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 240 - 194, 1 Present
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll884.xml

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Aside from a bomb going off in the democratic section of the chamber, we're screwed.

Pray for a comet!

-t

 

[awake]

The next argument; food is far to important to leave to the private sector...

 

[Ricky201]

Edit

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

OK this makes sense. The Boehner amendment was NOT the bill, it was an amendment TO the bill. Amend the bill to make it as least damaging as possible so if it passes (against your vote) then less damage will be done.

This actually makes sense.

If the Boehner amendment had been a BILL, then RP would vote "no" but since it was just an Amendment to change the Pelosi Bill into a less damaging form, then vote "yes" on the amendment but "no" on the bill whether the amendment passes or not.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

That way if the bill DOES pass you voted for it to be less damaging, even if you voted against passage itself.

That's kind of like inserting his own earmarks and voting against them.

-t

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Lynch mob anyone?

-t

 

[AuH20]

So the taxes for this bill will be implemented immediately, yet the bill will officially go into effect in 2013? In the meantime, this bastard will likely use the revenue to camouflage the deficit numbers.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

OK this makes sense. The Boehner amendment was NOT the bill, it was an amendment TO the bill. Amend the bill to make it as least damaging as possible so if it passes (against your vote) then less damage will be done.

This actually makes sense.

If the Boehner amendment had been a BILL, then RP would vote "no" but since it was just an Amendment to change the Pelosi Bill into a less damaging form, then vote "yes" on the amendment but "no" on the bill whether the amendment passes or not.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

That way if the bill DOES pass you voted for it to be less damaging, even if you voted against passage itself.

ie - a "no" vote on the Boehner amendment, however imperfect, was a "yes" vote on the Pelosi version (bigger government)

 

[bkreigh]

OK this makes sense. The Boehner amendment was NOT the bill, it was an amendment TO the bill. Amend the bill to make it as least damaging as possible so if it passes (against your vote) then less damage will be done.

This actually makes sense.

If the Boehner amendment had been a BILL, then RP would vote "no" but since it was just an Amendment to change the Pelosi Bill into a less damaging form, then vote "yes" on the amendment but "no" on the bill whether the amendment passes or not.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

That way if the bill DOES pass you voted for it to be less damaging, even if you voted against passage itself.

exactly. At least that is my interpretation of his vote.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That's kind of like inserting his own earmarks and voting against them.

-t

similar, yes, but even more principled than that example I think. A "no" vote on the Boehner amendment would mean you preferred the Pelosi version over the Boehner version. By voting "yes" on Boehner, it means that even though he doesn't want either format, if his colleagues then choose to ignore his wisdom and pass it anyway, that it would do less damage to the US.

 

[bkreigh]

I cant believe im watching C-SPAN over college football. Never in a million years would i have thought this day would ever come.

 

[bkreigh]

Here it is everybody.

 

[PBrady]

Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, oh shit...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

HERE WE GO (sounded like the NO's had it to me)

 

[low preference guy]

I cant believe im watching C-SPAN over college football. Never in a million years would i have thought this day would ever come.

Watching the destruction of your country is more important than college football. Because when there's no country left (in a few years, very likely), college football will be no more.

 

[AuH20]

We need 40 dems to say no!

 

[moostraks]

gonna be sick...

 

[pcosmar]

Ugh