Mark Knoller is a BOSS

**-Lazarus-** · 10-09-13, 04:47 PM

Finally someone asks a tough question. And there's the President, giving a mealy mouthed answer to the question. Essentially he said he won't sign the individual bills the house has passed for vets, Head Start for children, WIC, NIH, FDA, etc. including programs he supports, because then there would be less pressure on Republicans regarding the publicity on the shutdown. What a fucking douche. More evidence that his sole objective is to inflict as much pain as possible and try to hold Republicans responsible in the public eye. The answer is Obama doesn't want to help Americans if it means it might help Republicans.

I think this kind of says it all - look where they decided to use caps lock... get it?

**deathgodusmc** · 10-09-13, 05:22 PM

The best part is the end where he says the repubs should present a budget with the programs they dont like not funded so it can be talked about. Pretty sure that already happened several times and the dems didnt show up. We seriously need to fire all of these clowns.

**-Lazarus-** · 10-09-13, 08:39 PM

I have to wonder if we'll see Knoller allowed to ask questions any more... But good for him (and us) for asking. Journalism lives.

**AetheLove** · 10-09-13, 10:11 PM

Good (if simplistic) question.

Good (if long-winded) answer.

I don't understand why this is a thing. Giving in piece-meal is the equivalent of saying that the House gets to be the government. Agree or disagree with his policies, Obama is doing the right thing. He may prevail, or he may lose, but I don't see how this isn't the proper thing.

The House passed the ACA. The Senate passed the ACA. The President signed it. It's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed it.

There may yet be court challenges. If the Congress can write and pass legislation changing the law then that's what Congress is there for. So if you want to change the ACA then go ahead and do it. I think it's weak legislation but the opposition has offered nothing of any substance for going-on 30 years. The weak-ass compromise got passed. It's law. If any republican in the House thinks they can do better then by all means DO BETTER.

Everything else is BS.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Guyver** · 10-09-13, 11:12 PM

I liked the part where he said cockamamie.

**-Lazarus-** · 10-10-13, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Good (if simplistic) question.

Good (if long-winded) answer.

I don't understand why this is a thing. Giving in piece-meal is the equivalent of saying that the House gets to be the government. Agree or disagree with his policies, Obama is doing the right thing. He may prevail, or he may lose, but I don't see how this isn't the proper thing.

The House passed the ACA. The Senate passed the ACA. The President signed it. It's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed it.

There may yet be court challenges. If the Congress can write and pass legislation changing the law then that's what Congress is there for. So if you want to change the ACA then go ahead and do it. I think it's weak legislation but the opposition has offered nothing of any substance for going-on 30 years. The weak-ass compromise got passed. It's law. If any republican in the House thinks they can do better then by all means DO BETTER.

Everything else is BS.

Cheers,

AetheLove

Again, while it may sound good, the 30 years comment about the GOP is absolutely not true. Especially because the notion that we have needed health care reform for each of the last 30 years is ridiculous. And as a matter of fact the Republicans put forward a new plan for healthcare just before the shutdown when they passed the bill that did not include Obamacare. It looked damned good compared to the ACA.

And since we had to pass it to find out what was in it, I see no problem with a movement to defund it after the fact.

**Red_Lizard2** · 10-10-13, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

And since we had to pass it to find out what was in it

...away from the fog of the controversy. (The full quote).

Prior to it:

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.

Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties -- WASHINGTON, March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Not quite the zinger it's been made out to be. Stupid statement, one that could have been said better to avoid becoming a soundbite, but not the big zinger.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-10-13, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Good (if simplistic) question.

Good (if long-winded) answer.

I don't understand why this is a thing. Giving in piece-meal is the equivalent of saying that the House gets to be the government. Agree or disagree with his policies, Obama is doing the right thing. He may prevail, or he may lose, but I don't see how this isn't the proper thing.

The House passed the ACA. The Senate passed the ACA. The President signed it. It's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed it.

There may yet be court challenges. If the Congress can write and pass legislation changing the law then that's what Congress is there for. So if you want to change the ACA then go ahead and do it. I think it's weak legislation but the opposition has offered nothing of any substance for going-on 30 years. The weak-ass compromise got passed. It's law. If any republican in the House thinks they can do better then by all means DO BETTER.

Everything else is BS.

Cheers,

AetheLove

Saying its the law does not end the debate nor solve any issues. We have plenty of laws that are not enforced, ignored, wish they were gone, should be gone, and a laundry list full of laws that were were outright wrong to have to begin with. Just because something is the law is a piss poor stand point to argue from.

**AetheLove** · 10-10-13, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Saying its the law does not end the debate nor solve any issues. We have plenty of laws that are not enforced, ignored, wish they were gone, should be gone, and a laundry list full of laws that were were outright wrong to have to begin with. Just because something is the law is a piss poor stand point to argue from.

Perhaps (or perhaps not), but I was responding to the video. I thought it was a fair question, not a tough one. I also thought the answer was reasonable.

None of that has to do with what I think of the ACA.

I also wasn't referring to the way we go about enforcing existing laws, or changing outdated ones.

Still, you bring up an interesting new point. I suppose there are other good places to argue from, but when you say this, "Just because something is the law is a piss poor stand point to argue from.", I want to ask you:

How do you feel about the Constitution?

Cheers,

AetheLove

**triggerhappy2005** · 10-10-13, 09:05 AM

I found the question to also be fair. I was a little taken back by his emotional involvement which a supposedly unbiased reporter shouldn't have.

I also found the response to be thoughtful and appropriate. I don't see the conflict here that Laz describes.