It's actually very, very easy to understand - I'll break it down for you:
Except that's not true. Markets are part of capitalism, but the free market is not a necessary part of it. Neither does it need to involve the private sector, because there are such things as state owned private businesses that are otherwise operated as capitalist enterprises. The USPS is a good example of that in the US. What defines capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, capital accumulation and wage labor.
The vote includes voting for the ammendments. It doesn't include knowing what the ammendments are.You know, they did have to vote on all the amendments to know which ones would be included and which would not. That's not rocket science.
What? Until the amendments are voted in or out they can’t know whether they will or won’t be in the bill. After the vote, they can know. It’s pretty simple.
Yes I remember. The Republicans added many amendments to the bill, which the Democrats agreed to, but the Republicans all voted against it anyway. They were not bargaining in good faith.
You've left out no relevant facts, of course. Like a good Democrat, lol. But what I was referring to was Nancy saying that we can't know what is in it until we vote it into law.
The Republicans in question tried to make the bill an acceptable one. They've been in favor of some version or other for some time. However, the best that could be gotten was still defective.
I'm not a Democrat, good or otherwise, but your attempt at personal disparagement is noted. And no, I have not left out relevant facts. It is really very simple.
Yeah, I got that reference the first time; however, she is correct that we can't know what all is in it until all the amendments have been voted on to be in or not. This is the third time in a row that I have had to point this out. And again, I must say that this is obvious and shouldn't need to be pointed out once, let alone three times.
No, what I wrote follows.Talk about a non-sequitur.
I don't believe that they did try to make it better unless you consider more defective to be better somehow.
No, the Democrats did compromise, but the Republicans were determined not to let Obama's agenda pass. McConnell stated that he wanted to make him a one-term president. He was clear on his motives. They never had any intention of letting a health care reform bill pass. But they lost.
Yes, it is common but one party really is more partisan than the other.
So it appears that all you're saying is that because the Republicans didn't let the Democrats write the bill exactly as that party would prefer it to be, they're some kind of 'spoiled sports' for voting against it thereafter? That's hilarious. Do you also think it best if Pelosi and Schumer barred all people but Democrats from voting on any bill because, after all, the Democratic members are competent to write all legislation on their own?
No, that isn't what I said which was that the Republicans bargained in bad faith as they never had any intention of letting a health care reform bill pass if Obama was going to get credit. McConnell said it outright.
Okay.
But very few people accused West Germany of being a Socialist regime. So to say, with seriousness, that welfare states are commonly called Socialist states isn't demonstrated by your example here.
No, I am not implying that; that is not at all what I said, which was that until all the the amendments were approved or denied no one could know what the final result would be. This is simple - don't try to twist it into something else.
How do you know what she knew?
As I remember, she said so. I could be wrong. No, I'm not going to look it up.
As a Millennial Democrat, I'd like to clarify that when we use Denmark as an example of "socialism," it's not because we actually think that Denmark is socialist. It's because the policies that we advocate for, which Republicans label as "socialism," are in place in countries like Denmark. So if those policies constitute "socialism," then Denmark is "socialist".
