Bottom line is you knew NOTHING about what you were saying. You're trying to rewrite your own history with data you learned later, and trying to blur the line. You had no idea of what GOP bill I was talking about though I kept stating it was Chaffee's bill, you had NO idea there were other bills which I wasn't talking about anyway. You had NO idea how many cosponsors there were. Yet you're still here pretending your misuse of the term Congressmen means you knew what you were talking about when Congressmen is used to describe members of the HOUSE
Me trying to rewrite history…. Interesting theory.
Your Claim “You had NO idea there were other bills”
Facts http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-constitutional?page=1#comment-127378 He is Me mentioning the two bills. March 7th of this year. One of a couple I’m sure. Since this isn’t my first discussion on the individual mandate. Now I am almost sure you DID NOT know there was two. Do you have any Facts that refute my claim.
I see your Wiki and Raise you the Dictionary “a member of a congress, especially of the U.S. House of Representatives.” Last I checked, Senators are members of Congress. (would you like the definition of Congress also) So am concerned that you wish to twist the English language in your infantile attempt to get me to Retract something.
Problem is you'll never admit you made a mistake about anything. You sweep them all under the carpet and assuage your fragile ego with smart ass comebacks.
Find a real mistake and we’ll talk. But so far…. This it just funny shit.
There you go projecting again. No one making anything up here. I said the Chaffee bill COULD have had 75% for all we know… all we know are two things… 1: the number of cosponsors, and 2: support for bills will probably be bigger than the number of cosponsors. If there were two competing GOP bills coming up for a floor debate, the GOP would probably vote for both to be debated. We simply don't have any vote totals since both died in Democratic controlled committees.
And said, if you are making up shit, you might have just said “Chaffee bill COULD have had 95% for all we know”. But I like you use of Qualifiers “support for bills will probably be bigger than the number of cosponsors” or it PROBABLY be smaller if it came to a vote. But you are absolutely correct…. Both died in committee so this is all mental masturbation. So why even drum up 75%....
I never said it had majority support only widespread support. And even if it had unanimous GOP support the GOP was in the minority.
Ok… I’ll take your claim with a grain of salt…. Wide support but not Majority support. Which essentially means they had nothing. I’m glad we hammered out the English language. Although I would claim the Antonym of widespread. It had Limited support.
Projecting again? YOU are the one who has claimed, without proof, that the Chaffee bill was not serious, that it wasn't a key GOP alternative to head off HillaryCare. It's like all your posts… empty claims puffed up and passed off as if handed down on a slab.
Without proof? 2 bills in 3 days, Having the minority GOP support, never so much as getting a hearing…. Yet here you are claiming it WAS serious without proof. I think mine would beat yours in a trial.
No lies here asswipe. The record of this and all our threads show you are the one incapable of ever retracting any nonsense you spew…
As if I really expected you to have an epiphany just now and acknowledge you’re grossly flawed fallacious reasoning.
Speaking of sweeping your idiocy under the carpet… we're still all wondering where you got that 17% number while you were lecturing me on my math… which in the end was correct but your feeble mind could not comprehend. Oh, you swept that under the carpet too.
You seriously can’t figure that out. What is 27% subtract 44%. I gave up trying to help you with your math… Apparently even Subtraction even eludes your grasp.