Thank you Massachusetts!

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

Why?, you made it for me. All I did was change the subject from heathcare to war.

I'm sure there is some substance there somewhere...I just can't see it.

Originally Posted by WTF

My point is that there is half the nation that sat on their hands while we spent $ on a war to what? Save lives!

Now that same group is up in arms because we are spending money to.....SAVE LIVES!

You and I may both think that neither option either party has chosen is fiscally responsible or any combination thereof.

MY POINT is that both sides think spending other people's money is NOBLE if they believe in the cause and it is not their money!

Both sides stand on a SOAPBOX doing so. Including you and I. Though maybe our box's are not that tall nor do we think them noble. It is politics.

To think one can sit in the fence is Swiss like.

And when the discussion ensued related to the war in Iraq, we talked about the pros and cons of the war in Iraq. Now when the discussion ensues about the election in Mass or healthcare or Obama...it seems we talk about the war in Iraq. You might want to change the tape. And by the way, the war in Iraq (and Afganistan for that matter) is being led by the guy who you seem to think represents you.

Originally Posted by WTF

That is like saying that the answer is incorrect because one did not say "What is...." while playing Jeopardy.

Both sides do the very thing you are speaking of.

Nobody speaks for me, but I do realize the difference between being defeated in an election that I had the chance to vote in and one I did not.

While I may not have agreed with Bush, he was my President. I do not agree with Obama but he still is my President.

A senator from Mass. is not my senator.

You would have been a very welcome addition to the Dixie Chicks defenders when they said Bush did not speak for them.

I haven't a clue what the first sentence means here. Jeapordy? Again, I'm sure the words have some meaning, but I just can't see it.

But like the folks who say "the people have spoken" you seem to get wrapped up in some kind of symbolic meaning of such. As if, I must agree that Obama is "My" president or I am un-American. Well frankly I am a member of all kinds of organizations. And I disagree with the leadership of a lot of 'em. And while I have the right to (and do) rip that leadership (and any other member) a new a**hole whenever I choose, if I think they deserve it...I'll be damned if some outsider (non-member) is gonna do it.

Obama is my president when I am talking to a bunch of foreigners...just as GIII was...and Clinton was before that. But inside the membership, I'll rip him as oft as I want...and he damn sure ain't representing me within the confines of the organization.

Somehow I think you know all that too. But choose to jump back and forth in the interest of argument I guess. Maybe that's just becuase you are out patting guys on the butt now since maybe you think that's the way for you to show solidarity in your leadership.

[Guest083011]

This just in:
News Alert
11:21 AM EST Thursday, January 21, 2010

Pelosi rejects Senate version of health-care bill

Speaker of the House says she does not have enough votes to pass the Senate version of the health-care bill, leaving President Obama's most important domestic agenda item in grave jeopardy.

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com - http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/46MP2V/4BK5C/S3UE8F/OHMMES/2ZDX7/T3/t

[npita]

Originally Posted by otrdriver

Can anyone name something the Gov't has done successfully and made a profit.

The entire point of having a government is to do those things that people want, but that private industry will not do. If private industry will not do those things for lack of ``sufficient profit,'' why would you expect the government to do better? The fact is, public health insurance is an issue because private health insurance has not done what people want to the extent that there are large numbers of peope who want the government to step in. As pj pointed out, ANYONE who is receiving health insurance through an employer is effectively receiving a tax exemption. That tax exemption comes at the expense of those who pay taxes, but have no health insurance. So really, the private health insurance is ALREADY subsidized by taxes, but not everyone who pays taxes gets the benefits of what their taxes are subsidizing.

If you pay yaxes but cannot afford health insurance, then you ought to realize that is in part, because you are paying for someone else's health insurance. We are one of the few (maybe only) nations that refer to government subsidies of a business as capitalism.

[guest041110]

Originally Posted by WTF

I have no trouble reading between the lies...I mean lines.

Keep trying to paint yourself as some independent who cares about government spending. You appear to really care about govt spending that you do not agree with. Same as we all are in that regard. I know it sucs not to find yourself special.
...

*chuckling*

No WTF, you can’t read between the lines or you would have gotten it right the first time. My position is clear even if you don’t understand it. The written medium requires both the sender and the receiver to have a certain commonality in order for the communication to be dialogic and understandable. Obviously, you are not nearly as special as you think you are but then it is funny how the looking glass mirror can do that to a person is it not?

[discreetgent]

The election of Senator Brown will clearly have immediate repercussions. A decision today by the Supreme Court will have far more repercussions in how elections are influenced in the US. Essentially they overturned campaign limits for corporations and unions overturning a 1990 precedent. I am sure newspapers of all political viewpoints will have the story, here is a link to one http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us...scotus.html?hp

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

The election of Senator Brown will clearly have immediate repercussions. A decision today by the Supreme Court will have far more repercussions in how elections are influenced in the US. Essentially they overturned campaign limits for corporations and unions overturning a 1990 precedent.

Word! So McCain-Fiengold WAS unconstitutional -- as conservatives have argued for years.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

GIII

???

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Word! So McCain-Fiengold WAS unconstitutional -- as conservatives have argued for years.

Well yes and no, in terms of M-R the ban on soft money is still in place.

It also keeps in place a longstanding ban on direct contributions to candidates by corporations and unions. What it does allow is for corporations and unions to broadcast ads and the like in support of candidates (and I'm sure we're going to see parsing of what is considered support and what is considered direct support and contribution).

It goes beyond McCain-Feingold; the ban on corporate money goes back to Roosevelt's - Teddy - time in the very early 1900s. What the Court did was use a challenge to part of McCain-Feingold to make a much broader decision and along the way overturning a Supreme Court 1990 decision; hmm, does this mean that the conservative justices on the USSC are activist judges (I mean that couldn't be the case, only liberals do that )?

Here is a timeline on campaign finance laws and court decisions

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-campaign.html

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

???

Yeah, I'm not sure how that happened...but I was too lazy to go back and correct.

[lionheart]

My thoughts on the issues:

It appears that nothing on the face of this earth would wake these guys up at this point. Obama’s response to the upset in Massachusetts was that “people are angry and frustrated not only about what has happened in the last year or the last 2 years, but are still angry about the last 8 years!” WOW, so let me get this straight…one of the most liberal states in the entire country has elected a republican senator because they are still mad at Bush?!? Yea, buddy, that makes a lot of sense.

I also am having trouble understanding how so many people can say this upset is all local rather than a referendum on health care reform and Obama’s agenda, when in fact, Scott Brown campaigned around the central statement that if elected he would be the 41st vote to stop the HCR legislation and the far-left liberal agenda?

Now, it’s not just the legislation itself, but much of the anger surrounding HCR stems from the way it is being handled….the primary issues being 1) the unbelievable arrogance which boils from pretty much everything that has been going on in Washington, 2) the sweet deals (okay, let’s be honest and call it what it is – bribes) to get votes, 3) sweet deals to the unions and special interests and 4) the closed door private meetings that breed these types of deals. If the bill is so great, why do they need to give all these kickbacks just to get votes?

Now I consider myself a conservative person, and I will be the first to say that a great deal of what GW Bush did was bad, even horrible, for the country. Granted, he achieved pretty much zilch in terms of legislation in the last few years of his presidency because the dems controlled congress, but in general he spent way too much money and inflated the size of government way too much. Then in 2008 we just went from bad to worse. I am glad to see this wake-up call in Massachusetts. There are many things in this country that are in need of repair, including health care, but it needs to be done in a sensible manner, not huge out-of-control-several-thousand-page bills crammed down the throats of the American people. We would all be served well to remember this:

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'm sure there is some substance there somewhere...I just can't see it.

I'll take your word that you can't see it but I hope you don't take offense if my guess is you didn't look to hard.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

And when the discussion ensued related to the war in Iraq, we talked about the pros and cons of the war in Iraq. Now when the discussion ensues about the election in Mass or healthcare or Obama...it seems we talk about the war in Iraq. You might want to change the tape. And by the way, the war in Iraq (and Afganistan for that matter) is being led by the guy who you seem to think represents you.

I thought you were talking about how hypocritical it was for some to say a year and a half ago the election was a mandate and then to say this one wasn't.

I just used the war as a point of refrence, I guess I could have used SS. Really my point was all seem to be hypocrites at times. I include myself in that bunch and do not exclude you.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

But like the folks who say "the people have spoken" you seem to get wrapped up in some kind of symbolic meaning of such. As if, I must agree that Obama is "My" president or I am un-American. Well frankly I am a member of all kinds of organizations. And I disagree with the leadership of a lot of 'em. And while I have the right to (and do) rip that leadership (and any other member) a new a**hole whenever I choose, if I think they deserve it...I'll be damned if some outsider (non-member) is gonna do it.

Obama is my president when I am talking to a bunch of foreigners...just as GIII was...and Clinton was before that. But inside the membership, I'll rip him as oft as I want...and he damn sure ain't representing me within the confines of the organization.

I think you just said that the Dixie Chicks could rip GWIII as long as they do in on our shores. I can live with that. Poor girls might not have gotten the memo though. I personally thought what they said and where they said it was much ado about nothing. I mean they were not giving out troop locals far as I could tell.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Somehow I think you know all that too. But choose to jump back and forth in the interest of argument I guess. Maybe that's just becuase you are out patting guys on the butt now since maybe you think that's the way for you to show solidarity in your leadership.

LOL....no rear patting here unless there is nice tata's up front.

I have ADHD....in my view, I'm not jumping around. I do understand though where others might think so.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lionheart

I also am having trouble understanding how so many people can say this upset is all local rather than a referendum on health care reform and Obama’s agenda,
!

Because it was held in Mass. People in Mass seem to agree with him or at least 50+ % of them do. Damn how hard is that to understand? People vote with their pocketbook. For residents of Mass a national healthcare plan makes no sense. They already have state mandated healthcare. You understand that don't you? Do you understand how on the face that makes no sense and perfect sense , depending on how far you peel back the onion?

I am no fan of this HC bill but at least I think I am realistic on what certain things mean....at least to me and my local senses!

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

People in Mass ... already have state mandated healthcare.

Which is already crumbling.

[WTF]

:clapp ing::c lapping:

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Which is already crumbling.

Well maybe the Federal government can implement a late 'surge' to rally the Mass. locals against the insurer-gents!

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

I think you just said that the Dixie Chicks could rip GWIII as long as they do in on our shores. I can live with that. Poor girls might not have gotten the memo though. I personally thought what they said and where they said it was much ado about nothing. I mean they were not giving out troop locals far as I could tell.

Yeah, I'd say that is a pretty fair assessment of of my beliefs as it relates to the DC's. But I don't think they realized, as much as they have every right and authority to say and do what they want in that regard...folks that buy their songs and go to their shows have every right and authority to stop doing so if they don't like their being mouthy.

It seems a lot of folks believe in freedom of speech and action, as long as they are the ones speaking and acting. But they put the big whine on, crying woe is me, when others start speaking and acting, and such speech and action detrimentally affects the former.

As the other thread said..."Karma is a bitch". Or as physics would tell you...For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.