Pass by any means necessary

[TuTu Monroe]

Senate Democratic Leadership Will Pass Health Care Reform “By Any Legislative Means Necessary”

August 19, 2009 4:07 PM ABC News

Amidst questions of whether or not any Senate Republicans will support a health care reform bill, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., today said that the “White House and the Senate Democratic leadership still prefer a bipartisan bill.”

The Reid spokesman said that “neither the White House nor the leadership have made a decision to pursue reconciliation,” the somewhat controversial legislative process by which a bill is introduced in such a manner so that it requires merely 50 votes instead of 60 to proceed to a vote, thus removing the threat of filibuster.

Manley said that “we will not make a decision to pursue reconciliation until we have exhausted efforts to produce a bipartisan bill.”

“However,” he cautioned, “patience is not unlimited and we are determined to get something done this year by any legislative means necessary.”

“By any means necessary” is a phrase popularized by Malcolm X (demanding the rights of African-Americans to be respected in society), though it is thought to have originally been penned by French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre in his play about assassination “Dirty Hands” (in a line demanding the end of class).

Another interesting question: will Senate Democrats even have 50 votes?

You cannot start out assuming Democrats have their full 60-vote majority, since Sens. Robert Byrd of Virginia and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts are so infirm.
So start with 58.

Then take out those who have expressed reservations if not opposition to a the inclusion of a public plan: Sens. Kent Conrad (ND), Ben Nelson (NE), Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Maybe Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Now you’re down to 53. And the pressure from outside interest groups and the insurance industry hasn’t even really begun yet.
On the other hand, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, organized a letter of 28 Senators demanding a public option.

So do Senate Democratic leaders have the votes for a bill with a public option?

Do they have the votes for a bill without one?
-jpt Jake Tapper

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Agreed, any means necessary.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

“By any means necessary” is a phrase popularized by Malcolm X (demanding the rights of African-Americans to be respected in society), though it is thought to have originally been penned by French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre in his play about assassination “Dirty Hands” (in a line demanding the end of class).

This is retarded. "By any means necessary" has always been a phrase. It was not "popularized".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

'any means necessary' should never be uttered without acceptance of any and all coming consequences.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

'any means necessary' should never be uttered without acceptance of any and all coming consequences.

REVOLUTION1?1?1?1

 

[Bonestorm]

Jake Tapper can be such a fucking douchebag sometimes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

REVOLUTION1?1?1?1

while it may indeed come to that, my predictions are more along the line of some representatives meeting unfortunate ends by very disgruntled constituents.

 

[ib1yysguy]

'any means necessary' should never be uttered without acceptance of any and all coming consequences.

You going to start a revolution if the feds go super crazy and get all powerful and offer a public health insurance option to people? Sounds like a good enough reason to me!

 

[ib1yysguy]

while it may indeed come to that, my predictions are more along the line of some representatives meeting unfortunate ends by very disgruntled constituents.

Yeah, people are going to get all violent when the government gives them a cheaper health insurance option.

My guess is this: six months after the bill passes and none of the predictions of socialism or old people death have come true, people are going to go, "wow, this is pretty sweet." And people like you will be dead, because you tried to do something stupid.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You going to start a revolution if the feds go super crazy and get all powerful and offer a public health insurance option to people? Sounds like a good enough reason to me!

you like to make wild ass inferences, don't you?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yeah, people are going to get all violent when the government gives them a cheaper health insurance option.

My guess is this: six months after the bill passes and none of the predictions of socialism or old people death have come true, people are going to go, "wow, this is pretty sweet." And people like you will be dead, because you tried to do something stupid.

any maybe someday you'll actually pull your head out of your ass and think with some fresh air in your lungs.

 

[ib1yysguy]

you like to make wild ass inferences, don't you?

Why don't you tell me what people are going to get so riled up about to the point that they pick up guns against the government?

I expect to hear a lot of bullshit about stuff that isn't even on the table.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, people are going to get all violent when the government gives them a cheaper health insurance option.

My guess is this: six months after the bill passes and none of the predictions of socialism or old people death have come true, people are going to go, "wow, this is pretty sweet." And people like you will be dead, because you tried to do something stupid.

Again more rubbish (Onceler again it means "BS" without the cussing..), it won't even take effect for 5 years or more, and most of the bill that is owed comes due 5 years after that effectively making sure that Obama will never have to face the hard choices in having to either fund or cut the program. They made it "budget neutral" juuust long enough... *whew*.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why don't you tell me what people are going to get so riled up about to the point that they pick up guns against the government?

I expect to hear a lot of bullshit about stuff that isn't even on the table.

again, for the intelligence impaired, SOME representatives who have mentally unstable and/or radically imbalanced people in their districts may take it upon themselves to teach their representatives just who it is they are to represent. Killing one congressperson isn't taking on the government, it's just murder.

now, do you understand what i'm trying to tell you or are you too mentally incompetent in your liberal beliefs to understand simple terminology?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Why is it the first thing that happens when some legislation comes through that you dislike is to suggest violence against the government? You seem to do this more frequently than any of the mentally stable people who post on this forum.

I mean for Christ's sake you've got a banner bragging about the fact that you're willing to take up arms against whoever you determine to be a domestic enemy of the state.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Murder of congress people = stronger gun control.

 

[blackascoal]

again, for the intelligence impaired, SOME representatives who have mentally unstable and/or radically imbalanced people in their districts may take it upon themselves to teach their representatives just who it is they are to represent. Killing one congressperson isn't taking on the government, it's just murder.

now, do you understand what i'm trying to tell you or are you too mentally incompetent in your liberal beliefs to understand simple terminology?

No disrespect intended my brother, but the real point of your argument is revealed here .. "... may take it upon themselves to teach their representatives just who it is they are to represent."

It appears that you see motive in what you suggest may happen beyond "just murder."

They aren't there to represent morons who have guns .. and that murder just so happens to coincide with right-wing sentiment.

Our representatives all have mentally dereanged people in their districts who at any time take it upon themselves to teach politicians a whole host of non-sensical bullshit. The only thing different about now is the right-wing is openly formenting it.

I bet they call themselves "patriots."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No disrespect intended my brother, but the real point of your argument is revealed here .. [/b]"... may take it upon themselves to teach their representatives just who it is they are to represent."[/b]

It appears that you see motive in what you suggest may happen beyond "just murder."

They aren't there to represent morons who have guns .. and that murder just so happens to coincide with right-wing sentiment.

Our representatives all have mentally dereanged people in their districts who at any time take it upon themselves to teach politicians a whole host of non-sensical bullshit. The only thing different about now is the right-wing is openly formenting it.

I bet they call themselves "patriots."

no disrespect taken, brother. What appears to be more commonplace during any left wing reign of power is that the left constituents like to play that there was NEVER any type of intimidation or threats of violence when they were out of power and that all of this talk of violence now must be some abnormal core of rightwing extremism. nothing could be further from the truth. The only difference between the left and the right is that the right is more vocal about it.

patriots? i'm sure they do call themselves that. Not any more than those on the left call themselves patriots.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Murder of congress people = stronger gun control.

stronger gun control = more wacos and oklahoma cities.

 

[blackascoal]

no disrespect taken, brother. What appears to be more commonplace during any left wing reign of power is that the left constituents like to play that there was NEVER any type of intimidation or threats of violence when they were out of power and that all of this talk of violence now must be some abnormal core of rightwing extremism. nothing could be further from the truth. The only difference between the left and the right is that the right is more vocal about it.

patriots? i'm sure they do call themselves that. Not any more than those on the left call themselves patriots.

I don't disagree overall, but the difference and the truth is in the rational.

The left .. that is THE LEFT, not democrats .. took to violence over acts of violence that was already being perpretrated by a racist system of government and society. They RESPONDED to violence with violence.

Malcolm's "By any means necessary" was a call to self-defense.

Additionally, if you aren't old enough to know the history of Kent State and Jackson State, you should check it out.

Contrast that with people resorting to violence because they lost an election and disagree with the concept of healthcare for all Americans .. which the rest of the industrialized world already has.

If you see rational in that my brother I'm not sure what to tell you.