Ballots coming the first week in september.... what the....?

[Inthegame]

ITG, you are right. Calling Obama Obozo is not an accurate description. I probably should of just called him O-marxist. For the record, Bush 43rd was no peach either.

Disrespect isn't enough? Now you're reducing yourself to silly.

 

[The Other Side]

TOS, You are playing semantics. I have listened to the entire 2010 speech, in context.

Your quote is wrong. If you are going to correct someone for not quoting properly, it would be prudent not to change the quote yourself.

The exact quote "“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy". Look at the bill like a contract that we have to follow. Would you re-mortgage your house if the loan officer wouldn't give you the details and said "“But we have to to sign the contract so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy"? I would even argue that the "away from fog of the controversy" doubled my issue with her statement. She is saying pass it without giving anyone the opportunity to debate it. 14 days later, our president signed it into law.

ITG, you are right. Calling Obama Obozo is not an accurate description. I probably should of just called him O-marxist. For the record, Bush 43rd was no peach either.

Again, comprehension comes into play. I posted the entire context of what she said, and in NO WAY did she say what you said she said.

"away from the fog of the controversy" has NOTHING to do with voting. The statement is simply saying that once the bill is passed, and the ink is dry, there will be no more confusion since the republicans were saying things that were not true about the bill.

Once the bill was passed, all americans could read it, and hopefully understand it, without having to rely on questionable recaps from fox news and the entire republican party.

"outside" and "Away" have the same meaning, and I did not change the context of the quote. She has used BOTH words when she made this statement.

FOX news and the entire republican spin machine have people like oldngray believing that she said "we have to pass the bill in order to see whats in it"...

And that my friend is not accurate.

The key word and difference in the statement between what YOU and guys like OldnGray and ISlandfox think is the "replacement" of the word "YOU" with the word "WE".

This substitution of words changes the context of the statement and its this type of dishonesty in reporting that has FOX news as one of the most hated news channels in the world.

Yes, the drones give them an average of 2.8 million viewers a night, but that doesnt mean squat when entire countries wont even allow the channel to broadcast in their crap programming.

So, You stand corrected.

Her meaning is clear and simple if you listen to the clip I provided.

Peace

TOS

 

[Skooney]

TOS,

When you stop cheerleading for Obama --and open your eyes --just read the letter Hoffa sent to Obama relating to Obamacare and the killing of hard fought excellent won benefits for middle class Union people.

What else can he say to you --if you refuse to acknowledge that someone has to pay for Obamacare ---meaning you !!!

I love how you play the Parrot game. First of all, Hoffa didnt write a letter to Obama, he was merely "signatory" to it. It was written by other union leaders.

Of course, you wouldnt know that cause you listen to dopes.

While the letter is critical of some aspects of the ACA, the letter doesnt attack Obama, but merely asks for assistance in clarifying some rules.

Then again, what do you care about the truth? You watch fox news.

Peace

TOS

Did you read the letter? In no way shape or form was that a letter asking for the clarification of rules.

When sentences like "destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans" exist in a letter that you are calling a clarification of the rules, I think you are being foolish for believing that. There is no questions in that letter. Those are direct statements citing exactly what the ACA will do to healthcare. There is no basis or action pursuing clarification.

I agree with lots of what you say, but putting you're signatures endorsing such a document doesn't make you any different that writing it.. Your own biased view circumvents you from seeing what it was, and you put your own spin on it, and quite frankly I find what you say to be far better than that.

 

[kingOFchester]

Again, comprehension comes into play. I posted the entire context of what she said, and in NO WAY did she say what you said she said.

"away from the fog of the controversy" has NOTHING to do with voting. The statement is simply saying that once the bill is passed, and the ink is dry, there will be no more confusion since the republicans were saying things that were not true about the bill.

Troll, Don't even know why I am wasting calories responding to you, but I won't to be clear on this.

Post #57 you posted the following ""we have to pass the bill so YOU know whats in it outside the fog of the controversy".

Pelosi said "“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy


You will notice the incorrect wording posted by you, and the way it was actually said in blue.

I posted, in post 60 "“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy" Her exact wording.

My advice, other then getting your head out of your rectum, is 1) If you are going to call someone else out for not quoting properly, that you should at the very least quote properly. 2) Not to continue to embarrass yourself by continuing to claim that I in "NO WAY" posted the correct quote.

I never said that her statement "away from the fog of the controversy" had anything to do with voting. Are you really this dense??

Once the bill was passed, all americans could read it, and hopefully understand it, without having to rely on questionable recaps from fox news and the entire republican party.

I am sorry that you don't understand what is wrong with this statement. Yea, they were given 3 days to read the bill. It would take something like 18 hours just to read the bill. That isn't even counting the time to understand what you are reading.

"outside" and "Away" have the same meaning, and I did not change the context of the quote. She has used BOTH words when she made this statement.

Where? Show me.
​

​

FOX news and the entire republican spin machine have people like oldngray believing that she said "we have to pass the bill in order to see whats in it"...

Show me where fox news said this or printed the quote the way you are saying.

he key word and difference in the statement between what YOU and guys like OldnGray and ISlandfox think is the "replacement" of the word "YOU" with the word "WE".

Where did I use the word we in placement of you??

This substitution of words changes the context of the statement and its this type of dishonesty in reporting that has FOX news as one of the most hated news channels in the world.

I will help you out, you would be far better off arguing her intentions and what she meant rather then what she said.

So, You stand corrected.

You are delusional.

One last thing, USING capital LETTERS doesn't SUBSTANTIATE your POSTS.

 

[ups clerk]

The IBT is sending out ballots for the second vote and they should start arriving the first week in september. Here in southern california, we havent had a contract meeting since the rejection of the master, rider and supplemental. NO ONE from the IBT or our locals has called a meeting to discuss why we voted down the contract.

For us in the west, despite the letter from K.Hall advising us to "go pound sand", we will continue to vote DOWN the riders and supplementals and hold up this contract until the IBT discusses health insurance coverage with us.
And just what "reliable" source did you get this "fact" from. Word from my center has it that they are miles apart on some of the supplements.

VOTE NO, again.

Peace

TOS