In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)

More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?

Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the
House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull****
on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being
mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the
amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have
made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that
finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed
unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder
what has changed?

They read the bill...


http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-
death-counseling-exposed.aspx



--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)
More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?
Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in the
House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling bull****
on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as being
mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting, that the
amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill, *would* have
made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the amendment that
finally passed, the amendment very similar to the House bill, was passed
unanimously, meaning all the Republicans supported it. Gee, I wonder
what has changed?

They read the bill...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-
death-counseling-exposed.aspx





Isn't it interesting how conservative dirtbags like JustWait, Herring,
and a few others latch onto a bit of political flotsam and perseverate
on it no matter what, even when it has been shown to be absolute bull****?

H K wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:25:51 -0400, JLH OPAof7 wrote:


They weren't all squashed. Isakson's "death panel" made it in. ;-)
More bull**** from thunder. Isakson had nothing to do with the language
in the bill. Did you not know that? Have you been following the wrong
news reports?
Well, duh, Isakson is a Senator. The "death panel" in question is in
the House bill. By the by, you are an interesting one to be calling
bull**** on me, as you have continually passed these "panels" off as
being mandatory, which they clearly are not. It's also interesting,
that the amendment Isakson originally wanted, in the Senate bill,
*would* have made the counseling mandatory. You'll also note, the
amendment that finally passed, the amendment very similar to the
House bill, was passed unanimously, meaning all the Republicans
supported it. Gee, I wonder what has changed?

They read the bill...

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_t.../13/mandatory-

death-counseling-exposed.aspx


Isn't it interesting how conservative dirtbags like JustWait, Herring,
and a few others latch onto a bit of political flotsam and perseverate
on it no matter what, even when it has been shown to be absolute bull****?


We, the "conservative dirtbags", are winning this battle. It matters not
where the language came from it only matters that it is the Democrats
bill. The fact that the Democrats have shut the Republicans out of
writing the bill isn't in the Democrats favor either.

The Democrats wanted all the glory of providing "universal health care"
and they are getting all of that glory and ignominy of the adverse
nuggets that can be mined.