Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said in a statement that the committee “dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”Oh that's right, it was all a matter of leaving "major areas open to interpretation" and not the fact that your party is comprised of craven liars, Chuck. I mean there's one thing I do know is how easy it is to confuse making a living will with the forced euthanasia of anyone who has crossed the government's new age restrictions. I mean we can't leave it vague, otherwise an elderly man who comes in to discuss what he wants to happen if he should become paralyzed might be blown away by the shotgun blast of a doctor who is convinced he now has the right to kill indiscriminately. Whew! Bullet dodged.
A Senate Finance Committee aide confirmed that the panel was not discussing end-of-life measures, adding that they were “never a major focus” of the committee’s negotiations.
...
In his statement, Mr. Grassley called the House legislation “so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences.”
“On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” he continued, adding “Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t.”
So, what did we learn today kids? That no matter how inane, stupid, dishonest, deranged, crazy, or ridiculous your conspiracy theory is, if it comes in relation to an important legislative debate and the opposition party is dishonest enough to repeat it, then you can get useful provisions stripped out of said legislation. AND THE HOOOOOOOME OF THE BRAAAAAAAAAAAVE!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment