Jump to content

Will Dems sit down again and do the RIGHT thing?


flaps15

Recommended Posts

Well, never thought I'd say this but the "healthcare summit" on Thursday appears to have "nudged" some liberals into considering real Republican proposals toward reform. (read: Nancy can't Rahm her bill through, yet again)

 

Senator Tom Coburn is also correct in his turn at the Republican weekend address:

 

“The majority now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit. Or, they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America.”

 

I agree with him. Time to sit back down, get over this comprehensive crap and truly work at "reforming" health care in this country. I'm repeating myself when I say it should've been done a year ago, but wtf.

 

I disagree with Obama that this has to be done within six weeks. It has to be done right, for all Americans, and that doesn't happen quickly or comprehensively. But we'll see what he says on Wednesday, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, never thought I'd say this but the "healthcare summit" on Thursday appears to have "nudged" some liberals into considering real Republican proposals toward reform. (read: Nancy can't Rahm her bill through, yet again)

 

Senator Tom Coburn is also correct in his turn at the Republican weekend address:

 

"The majority now has a choice. We can continue to make progress like we did at the summit. Or, they can try to ram through a partisan bill that will divide and bankrupt America."

 

I agree with him. Time to sit back down, get over this comprehensive crap and truly work at "reforming" health care in this country. I'm repeating myself when I say it should've been done a year ago, but wtf.

 

I disagree with Obama that this has to be done within six weeks. It has to be done right, for all Americans, and that doesn't happen quickly or comprehensively. But we'll see what he says on Wednesday, eh?

 

9 of 10 things in the Republican plan are in the Dem plan. Easy enough to get full bipartisan support for those 9 items, unless there are those that will vote against it because it doesn't do enough.

 

If it has to be done in 6 weeks, why is it that in the Senate plan the taxes start immediately and most of the benefits don't take effect for years?

 

Oh....that's right.....election year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the Dems want to do the RIGHT-wing thing? They need to do what they think is best for their districts and stand behind it. That's what we elected them for.

 

The people spoke in Nov 2008. Pass this thing on a simple up or down majority. Let the people decide in Nov 2010 if they like what they did.

 

I know its hard for you Repubs to understand, but you lost the election. You lost power. You fucked it up for yourselves. Get over it. You are doing a pretty damn good job playing defense (always your strong suit, offense not so much), but its time to kick the field goal and you want a do over on the last series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the Dems want to do the RIGHT-wing thing? They need to do what they think is best for their districts and stand behind it. That's what we elected them for.

 

The people spoke in Nov 2008. Pass this thing on a simple up or down majority. Let the people decide in Nov 2010 if they like what they did.

 

I know its hard for you Repubs to understand, but you lost the election. You lost power. You fucked it up for yourselves. Get over it. You are doing a pretty damn good job playing defense (always your strong suit, offense not so much), but its time to kick the field goal and you want a do over on the last series.

The Republicans are not going to just roll over for you. Get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the Dems want to do the RIGHT-wing thing? They need to do what they think is best for their districts and stand behind it. That's what we elected them for.

 

The people spoke in Nov 2008. Pass this thing on a simple up or down majority. Let the people decide in Nov 2010 if they like what they did.

 

I know its hard for you Repubs to understand, but you lost the election. You lost power. You fucked it up for yourselves. Get over it. You are doing a pretty damn good job playing defense (always your strong suit, offense not so much), but its time to kick the field goal and you want a do over on the last series.

The Republicans are not going to just roll over for you. Get over it.

The 2008 election is over and if SEdwina would have read and or listened to the links above would come to know that it was apparently a flash in the pan. Otherwise we'd have had universal healthcare for everybody back before the August recess, or last week or Xmas, or halloweeny or thanksgiving or...... get my drift? Or to coin a phrase....

"Well lets look at it this way. Reason = Intelligence."- Spatial Edwina

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 2008 election is over and if SEdwina would have read and or listened to the links above would come to know that it was apparently a flash in the pan. Otherwise we'd have had universal healthcare for everybody back before the August recess, or last week or Xmas, or halloweeny or thanksgiving or...... get my drift? Or to coin a phrase....

"Well lets look at it this way. Reason = Intelligence."- Spatial Edwina

The first sign of winning an agruement is when the other side starts name calling.

 

I do agree, I wish the Dems had acted like the majority for the past year and rammed this thing through. Nothing wrong with having an agenda and the balls to enact it. The dems clearly don't have balls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right thing for whom? Their party? The other party? Their constituents? Whose definition of "right thing" should they use?

The definition supplied by the regressive RepubliCUNTS, such as fuck face flapper and pussy puppy, who are responsible for the policies during the last two presidential terms that resulted in the mass that we are in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The 2008 election is over and if SEdwina would have read and or listened to the links above would come to know that it was apparently a flash in the pan. Otherwise we'd have had universal healthcare for everybody back before the August recess, or last week or Xmas, or halloweeny or thanksgiving or...... get my drift? Or to coin a phrase....

"Well lets look at it this way. Reason = Intelligence."- Spatial Edwina

The first sign of winning an agruement is when the other side starts name calling.

 

I do agree, I wish the Dems had acted like the majority for the past year and rammed this thing through. Nothing wrong with having an agenda and the balls to enact it. The dems clearly don't have balls.

 

From your gender description, neither do you. If not Edwina then Edrea, Edmona, Edna, Edeline? Name calling? not in the least, Just trying to be proper. ;) What is an agruement anyway, some sort of farming implement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey cunt-Flaps, the only sitting needing to get done by the Demo's is for Nancy Pelosi to hike up her Gucci skirt and grind that smelly snatch into the Minority Whip's face until he cry's 'Nough! and then call for a vote on our Universal Healthcare and tell the Rs to hop onboard, or run their regressive asses over...flat. You tards had your 8 years of screwing up the economy and everything else while the Chamber of Commerce whores raided the Treasury, our 401Ks, and everything in the front yard not cemented into place...it's our turn to rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey cunt-Flaps, the only sitting needing to get done by the Demo's is for Nancy Pelosi to hike up her Gucci skirt and grind that smelly snatch into the Minority Whip's face until he cry's 'Nough! and then call for a vote on our Universal Healthcare and tell the Rs to hop onboard, or run their regressive asses over...flat. You tards had your 8 years of screwing up the economy and everything else while the Chamber of Commerce whores raided the Treasury, our 401Ks, and everything in the front yard not cemented into place...it's our turn to rule.

 

Fuck you you

piece of shit

 

Fuck off

 

 

KG

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right thing for whom? Their party? The other party? Their constituents? Whose definition of "right thing" should they use?

The insurance companies Government power, you ninny.

 

An eager government body that is planning and wants to take over a good size portion of the economy is sickening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey cunt-Flaps, the only sitting needing to get done by the Demo's is for Nancy Pelosi to hike up her Gucci skirt and grind that smelly snatch into the Minority Whip's face until he cry's 'Nough! and then call for a vote on our Universal Healthcare and tell the Rs to hop onboard, or run their regressive asses over...flat. You tards had your 8 years of screwing up the economy and everything else while the Chamber of Commerce whores raided the Treasury, our 401Ks, and everything in the front yard not cemented into place...it's our turn to rule.

Fixed it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right thing for whom? Their party? The other party? Their constituents? Whose definition of "right thing" should they use?

 

 

Obviously we should all use Sol"new Nazi" Rosenburg's example, opinion, and acts here as imaginary mindguard to the PA group as our roll model as to Right vs wrong .

 

what a silly question .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chair of Senate Budget Committee Conrad Declares Reconciliation Can't Be Used for Health Care

transcript:

 

"…reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction… The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work… It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care."

--via Ace

 

This legislative nightmare is dead as a doornail.

 

Obamacare and with it all the Hopey Change go down in flames. Burn baby burn...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the Dems want to do the RIGHT-wing thing? They need to do what they think is best for their districts and stand behind it. That's what we elected them for.

 

The people spoke in Nov 2008. Pass this thing on a simple up or down majority. Let the people decide in Nov 2010 if they like what they did.

 

I know its hard for you Repubs to understand, but you lost the election. You lost power. You fucked it up for yourselves. Get over it. You are doing a pretty damn good job playing defense (always your strong suit, offense not so much), but its time to kick the field goal and you want a do over on the last series.

 

My sentiments exactly.

Please, Nancy and harry, by all means use a little used budget procedure to send close to 20% of the economy into an upheaval.

 

I'm sure it will work perfectly, just like the experts predict, and costs will magically decrease, as a government run program succeeds in controlling costs for the first time in modern history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Obama dominates the room at health care summit" was the headline on a Reuters dispatch that found the president "always in command not only of the room but also the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with."

 

In a Washington Post column titled "Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health care reform," Dana Milbank marveled at how the president "controlled the microphone and the clock, (using) both skillfully to limit the Republicans' time, to rebut their arguments and to always have the last word."

 

Milbank went on to tell how Sen. John McCain got his "knuckles rapped" by the learned professor, how Sen. Mitch McConnell was made to "look small in his chair" and how various other Republican low-achievers felt the sting of Obama's "big rhetorical paddle."

 

But neither Reuters nor Milbank — nor many others, it seems — noticed Obama's conspicuous non-rebuttal to Rep. Paul Ryan.--From the Article

 

Rebuttals to Ryan? ..still waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You left out the most important part of the article, Flaps --

 

It was the Wisconsin congressman who made the most pointed remarks about Obama's reform proposal. For example:

 

• "This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."

 

• "The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."

 

• "The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

 

• "The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."

 

• "The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."

 

• "The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries."

 

• "Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare through a private insurer) will lose the coverage that they now enjoy."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

What a bunch of babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

What a bunch of babies.

Careful, they don't like that "babies thing" apparently it hits to close to home. I got chastised for it a few months back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

What a bunch of babies.

Their whole progressive world is crashing down around them. The utopia that the progressives envisioned for American is being rejected across the board.- It took independents and conservative Democrats less than a year to join Republicans in the effort to stop Pelosi, Reid and Obama. The truth is coming out - this is a conservative country and the voters will make that very clear in November.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

 

Mark, name one great society program that is problem free, or even close. After all, the Dems have had over 40 years to fix them. We've had over 50 years of waste, fraud, and abuse and the Dems want to expand on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

What a bunch of babies.

Their whole progressive world is crashing down around them. The utopia that the progressives envisioned for American is being rejected across the board.- It took independents and conservative Democrats less than a year to join Republicans in the effort to stop Pelosi, Reid and Obama. The truth is coming out - this is a conservative country and the voters will make that very clear in November.

Neither party is conservative. One doesn't know how to govern, or is afraid to do so, and the other does so by questioning the patriotism of the other. If only conservatives could be in control, but that hasn't happened for several decades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

 

Mark, name one great society program that is problem free, or even close. After all, the Dems have had over 40 years to fix them. We've had over 50 years of waste, fraud, and abuse and the Dems want to expand on it.

 

How did the Tea Party react to suggestions

that there would be cuts in Medicare? How

did the Republicans to the same thing?

 

You really expect them to eliminate it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

What a bunch of babies.

Their whole progressive world is crashing down around them. The utopia that the progressives envisioned for American is being rejected across the board.- It took independents and conservative Democrats less than a year to join Republicans in the effort to stop Pelosi, Reid and Obama. The truth is coming out - this is a conservative country and the voters will make that very clear in November.

Neither party is conservative. One doesn't know how to govern, or is afraid to do so, and the other does so by questioning the patriotism of the other. If only conservatives could be in control, but that hasn't happened for several decades.

It’s reasonable to be disappointed that the Republicans are not conservative. It’s unreasonable to be disappointed that the Democrats are not conservative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the Tea Party react to suggestions

that there would be cuts in Medicare? How

did the Republicans to the same thing?

 

You really expect them to eliminate it?

 

It's impossible to stop something once it's been promised to you by law. After all, these folks have been paying medicare taxes for a while now. This health care bill will be more of the same, except on a larger scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, name one great society program that is problem free, or even close. After all, the Dems have had over 40 years to fix them. We've had over 50 years of waste, fraud, and abuse and the Dems want to expand on it.

 

Would you and your buddy TM just come out and show us an example of a time in US modern history that you want us to emulate now? Apparently we are a Conservative country and "we need to get back" to that in the next election. When do we need to get back to? You complain about constant Democratic blunders for some 50 years which have ruined us today. Then y'all go and claim the mantle of being flag waiving blood red Patriots who are so much more proud of "your" country than the rest of us Soviet sympathizers. What are you so proud of if "we" have destroyed America for more than half a century and likely over the span your entire life? Has there ever once been a month or a year where it was all good and you are now pining for that time or do you think you will just know it when you see it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, name one great society program that is problem free, or even close. After all, the Dems have had over 40 years to fix them. We've had over 50 years of waste, fraud, and abuse and the Dems want to expand on it.

 

Would you and your buddy TM just come out and show us an example of a time in US modern history that you want us to emulate now? Apparently we are a Conservative country and "we need to get back" to that in the next election. When do we need to get back to? You complain about constant Democratic blunders for some 50 years which have ruined us today. Then y'all go and claim the mantle of being flag waiving blood red Patriots who are so much more proud of "your" country than the rest of us Soviet sympathizers. What are you so proud of if "we" have destroyed America for more than half a century and likely over the span your entire life? Has there ever once been a month or a year where it was all good and you are now pining for that time or do you think you will just know it when you see it?

August 1983

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, name one great society program that is problem free, or even close. After all, the Dems have had over 40 years to fix them. We've had over 50 years of waste, fraud, and abuse and the Dems want to expand on it.

 

Would you and your buddy TM just come out and show us an example of a time in US modern history that you want us to emulate now? Apparently we are a Conservative country and "we need to get back" to that in the next election. When do we need to get back to? You complain about constant Democratic blunders for some 50 years which have ruined us today. Then y'all go and claim the mantle of being flag waiving blood red Patriots who are so much more proud of "your" country than the rest of us Soviet sympathizers. What are you so proud of if "we" have destroyed America for more than half a century and likely over the span your entire life? Has there ever once been a month or a year where it was all good and you are now pining for that time or do you think you will just know it when you see it?

 

 

In my mind it is about cost. Bush and his crowd are to blame for an unfunded prescription drug program and getting us involved in 2 very expensive wars, to name the big ones. Dems, for the most part, supported those initiatives. You can argue that the Bush tax cuts were expensive, but I tend to focus more on spending than how much the Fed feels justified in taking peoples money.

 

I find it hypocritical that Obama is whining about the insolvency of Medicare as an argument to pass an even bigger entitlement program where the out years promise to be even more daunting than Medicare's imminent bankruptcy is today.

 

I also find it extremely tedious that Obama is still whining about what he "inherited". He didn't inherit shit - he begged for the job and claimed to have solutions. I haven't seen a single solution he's proposed that would put this country back on track to financial solvency. In fact - the opposite is happening.

 

Both parties are responsible for the mess we're in. It would be nice to see both parties work to fix it.

 

Leadership and power are not the same. The sooner Obama recognizes that and slaps down Pelosi and Reid, the sooner we can get things moving in the right direction. I pray the Dems lose the House and Senate in the fall. Then there will be true bipartisan efforts out of necessity -- much like we had in the Clinton/Gingrich and Reagan/O'Neill days.

 

'83 was a good year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the Tea Party react to suggestions

that there would be cuts in Medicare? How

did the Republicans to the same thing?

 

You really expect them to eliminate it?

 

It's impossible to stop something once it's been promised to you by law. After all, these folks have been paying medicare taxes for a while now. This health care bill will be more of the same, except on a larger scale.

 

It's just an attempt to sort out the private

insurance industry, and thereby hopefully reduce

the number of young people who are falling

into governments laps. A massive percentage

of the governments budget, like Medicare, it

is not. It is mearly an attempt to keep it

from bankrupting us.

 

The average expenditure per person in Medicare

is half what the average contribution is. We

can't keep borrowing money forever to keep

this enormously popular program going, yet

calls to trim we characterized as "pulling

the plug on Grandma" and calls to increase

the revenue were countered with much very

effective like-style demonization.

 

I understand it, DeMint is both brilliant and

honest, if indiscrete, it's all about wanting

Obama to fail. NTTAWWT, but the

mis-characterizations we make during our

propaganda campaign painted us into a bit of a corner

on dealing honestly and rationally with the

problem ourselves somewhere down the road.

 

It's better to let the Dems take the hit,

don't you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it’s not about avoiding bankruptcy it’s about delivering the “fundamental transformation” Obama promised us. If the bill were really about avoiding bankruptcy it would actually cut costs, not employ accounting gimmicks to conceal its actual cost. As Rep Ryan pointed out…

 

• "This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."

 

• "The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."

 

• "The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

 

• "The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."

 

• "The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there will be true bipartisan efforts out of necessity -- much like we had in the Clinton/Gingrich and Reagan/O'Neill days.

'83 was a good year.

 

Sorry if I don't understand your fawning vision of fiscal Conservatism during the Reagan/O'Neill Days. The tripling of the debt over that time is exactly your complaint about the current administration. I'm with you on Clinton/Gingrich.

 

US Debt in Billions

 

1980 $711.9

1981 $789.4

1982 $924.6

1983 $1,137.3

1984 $1,307.0

1985 $1,507.3

1986 $1,740.6

1987 $1,889.8

1988 $2,051.6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I don't understand your fawning vision of fiscal Conservatism during the Reagan/O'Neill Days. The tripling of the debt over that time is exactly your complaint about the current administration. I'm with you on Clinton/Gingrich.

 

US Debt in Billions

 

1980 $711.9

1981 $789.4

1982 $924.6

1983 $1,137.3

1984 $1,307.0

1985 $1,507.3

1986 $1,740.6

1987 $1,889.8

1988 $2,051.6

Like I said earlier, we have not had conservative government for quite some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it’s not about avoiding bankruptcy it’s about delivering the “fundamental transformation” Obama promised us. If the bill were really about avoiding bankruptcy it would actually cut costs, not employ accounting gimmicks to conceal its actual cost. As Rep Ryan pointed out…

 

 

How can the government "cut costs" in large, meaningful ways without taking the whole system over? Adopt the German model? I'm all for that. Too bad it would entail far more radical change than what has been proposed here, and would also have to overcome all the built up vested interests. See Joe Lieberman, gatekeeper for AETNA and others in his insurance company job-heavy state.

 

Shame, but the last year proved what was politically attainable and what was not. We are fucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there will be true bipartisan efforts out of necessity -- much like we had in the Clinton/Gingrich and Reagan/O'Neill days.

'83 was a good year.

 

Sorry if I don't understand your fawning vision of fiscal Conservatism during the Reagan/O'Neill Days. The tripling of the debt over that time is exactly your complaint about the current administration. I'm with you on Clinton/Gingrich.

 

US Debt in Billions

 

1980 $711.9

1981 $789.4

1982 $924.6

1983 $1,137.3

1984 $1,307.0

1985 $1,507.3

1986 $1,740.6

1987 $1,889.8

1988 $2,051.6

Seems to me we are on the same debt track as we were in 1983. The conservatives pining for 1983 should be happy as a pig in shit. Why the bitching? Oh yeah, they are whiny bitch conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the Dems want to do the RIGHT-wing thing? They need to do what they think is best for their districts and stand behind it. That's what we elected them for.

 

The people spoke in Nov 2008. Pass this thing on a simple up or down majority. Let the people decide in Nov 2010 if they like what they did.

 

I know its hard for you Repubs to understand, but you lost the election. You lost power. You fucked it up for yourselves. Get over it. You are doing a pretty damn good job playing defense (always your strong suit, offense not so much), but its time to kick the field goal and you want a do over on the last series.

 

Ammusing how Dems always say "Well, you lost the election because you fucked up the country, fucked it up for yourselves, etc."

 

Unfortunately, they're not listining to the people. It's clear that the majority of the constituants in america do not want this retarded, bloated, expensive piece of crappy legislation.

 

I believe we all need to simmer down and take a look at some of the reform package ideas and implement those that are going to work and have a minimal impact on the economy (Baby steps). As it sits now it won't work, and will bankrupt the country (as if we're not there already).

 

The entitlements and spending have to stop or we're doomed.

 

The reason the Dems are in a hurry is because they want to see this over with before the Easter recess. They don't want to deal with the angry mobs when they go home.

 

If they force this thing through they're done. Hope they can find a job as a lobbiest or lawyer when they're gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, name one great society program that is problem free, or even close. After all, the Dems have had over 40 years to fix them. We've had over 50 years of waste, fraud, and abuse and the Dems want to expand on it.

 

Would you and your buddy TM just come out and show us an example of a time in US modern history that you want us to emulate now? Apparently we are a Conservative country and "we need to get back" to that in the next election. When do we need to get back to? You complain about constant Democratic blunders for some 50 years which have ruined us today. Then y'all go and claim the mantle of being flag waiving blood red Patriots who are so much more proud of "your" country than the rest of us Soviet sympathizers. What are you so proud of if "we" have destroyed America for more than half a century and likely over the span your entire life? Has there ever once been a month or a year where it was all good and you are now pining for that time or do you think you will just know it when you see it?

August 1983

 

 

 

 

You want to go back to a time of high unemployement http://abcnews.go.com/Business/JobClub/story?id=7757701&page=1 ?

You want to go BACK to the hight of the cold war?

You want to go back to a time with the second highest abortion rate in history?

These are the GOOD TIMES you want to go back too?

 

Good god man, where do you live now that those are GOOD???

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bunch of babies.

Careful, they don't like that "babies thing" apparently it hits to close to home. I got chastised for it a few months back.

that's precious. This is a thread crying about whether the democRATS will do what you want them to do, and you call others babies? If you had said something back when your team was busy being a bunch of big government liberals, deficit spending their way through two nation building exercises, you wouldn't have to fret about what the democrats would do. But that's the problem with liberals, you never want to take responsibility for your actions, or lack thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the Tea Party react to suggestions

that there would be cuts in Medicare? How

did the Republicans to the same thing?

 

You really expect them to eliminate it?

 

It's impossible to stop something once it's been promised to you by law. After all, these folks have been paying medicare taxes for a while now. This health care bill will be more of the same, except on a larger scale.

 

It's just an attempt to sort out the private

insurance industry, and thereby hopefully reduce

the number of young people who are falling

into governments laps. A massive percentage

of the governments budget, like Medicare, it

is not. It is mearly an attempt to keep it

from bankrupting us.

 

The average expenditure per person in Medicare

is half what the average contribution is. We

can't keep borrowing money forever to keep

this enormously popular program going, yet

calls to trim we characterized as "pulling

the plug on Grandma" and calls to increase

the revenue were countered with much very

effective like-style demonization.

 

I understand it, DeMint is both brilliant and

honest, if indiscrete, it's all about wanting

Obama to fail. NTTAWWT, but the

mis-characterizations we make during our

propaganda campaign painted us into a bit of a corner

on dealing honestly and rationally with the

problem ourselves somewhere down the road.

 

It's better to let the Dems take the hit,

don't you agree?

Pull my other leg Mark. The bill sets up a Kommisar (commissioner) who has the same rank as the SSA Administrator. The SSA has over 20,000 government employees. The CBO doesn't include overhead in it's estimates on how much this bill will cost. If it was just setting up something like the SEC, I wouldn't have a problem. This bill goes beyond regulating the insurance industry to actually controlling it. The exchange that we will all be moving to in 10 years will be the way the government will controlling the health insurance industry. The Kommisar will determine which companies will be allowed on the exchange and will determine what plan they will offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the Tea Party react to suggestions

that there would be cuts in Medicare? How

did the Republicans to the same thing?

 

You really expect them to eliminate it?

 

It's impossible to stop something once it's been promised to you by law. After all, these folks have been paying medicare taxes for a while now. This health care bill will be more of the same, except on a larger scale.

 

It's just an attempt to sort out the private

insurance industry, and thereby hopefully reduce

the number of young people who are falling

into governments laps. A massive percentage

of the governments budget, like Medicare, it

is not. It is mearly an attempt to keep it

from bankrupting us.

 

The average expenditure per person in Medicare

is half what the average contribution is. We

can't keep borrowing money forever to keep

this enormously popular program going, yet

calls to trim we characterized as "pulling

the plug on Grandma" and calls to increase

the revenue were countered with much very

effective like-style demonization.

 

I understand it, DeMint is both brilliant and

honest, if indiscrete, it's all about wanting

Obama to fail. NTTAWWT, but the

mis-characterizations we make during our

propaganda campaign painted us into a bit of a corner

on dealing honestly and rationally with the

problem ourselves somewhere down the road.

 

It's better to let the Dems take the hit,

don't you agree?

Pull my other leg Mark. The bill sets up a Kommisar (commissioner) who has the same rank as the SSA Administrator. The SSA has over 20,000 government employees. The CBO doesn't include overhead in it's estimates on how much this bill will cost. If it was just setting up something like the SEC, I wouldn't have a problem. This bill goes beyond regulating the insurance industry to actually controlling it. The exchange that we will all be moving to in 10 years will be the way the government will controlling the health insurance industry. The Kommisar will determine which companies will be allowed on the exchange and will determine what plan they will offer.

 

If one proposes to open up the industry to

sell across all state lines, an national

commissioner has to be established. Right

now the states all have their own, but

they lack jurisdiction across state lines.

 

The last thing we want is to make it

tougher for hospital administrative

staff. They have to massively overstaff

just to keep up with the intricacies

in their own states laws and providers.

Imagine how many different 150

page policies might wander through the

door in a wide open market. Without

some basic rule-set to abide by, the

task of finding the loopholes would

become all but impossible for them, and

the competition among insureres would

remain in the arena of making the most

creative and well hidden loopholes, as

it is now. This is part of our mess.

 

This has to be fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there will be true bipartisan efforts out of necessity -- much like we had in the Clinton/Gingrich and Reagan/O'Neill days.

'83 was a good year.

 

Sorry if I don't understand your fawning vision of fiscal Conservatism during the Reagan/O'Neill Days. The tripling of the debt over that time is exactly your complaint about the current administration. I'm with you on Clinton/Gingrich.

 

US Debt in Billions

 

1980 $711.9

1981 $789.4

1982 $924.6

1983 $1,137.3

1984 $1,307.0

1985 $1,507.3

1986 $1,740.6

1987 $1,889.8

1988 $2,051.6

 

Interesting that you quote my point on bi-partisanship and then translate that into me claiming it was an era of "fiscal conservatism". Quoting me is fine, but don't read between the lines, RTB. If I had wanted to assert that Reagan/Clinto days were fiscally conservative, I'd have said so myself. I didn't.

 

If you want to compare the rate of deficit spending from 1980 - 1988, please take a look at projected deficit spending from 2009 - 2019. It is a much uglier picture now than it was then and could get even uglier without some restraint. I believe that the Republicans provide that restraint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one proposes to open up the industry to

sell across all state lines, an national

commissioner has to be established. Right

now the states all have their own, but

they lack jurisdiction across state lines.

 

The last thing we want is to make it

tougher for hospital administrative

staff. They have to massively overstaff

just to keep up with the intricacies

in their own states laws and providers.

Imagine how many different 150

page policies might wander through the

door in a wide open market. Without

some basic rule-set to abide by, the

task of finding the loopholes would

become all but impossible for them, and

the competition among insureres would

remain in the arena of making the most

creative and well hidden loopholes, as

it is now. This is part of our mess.

 

This has to be fixed.

 

A large portion of it has already been fixed - in the stimulus bill.

 

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HR1.pdf

 

Start reading at page 401.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority should only proceed after full consultation with the minority party, and respect for (and implementation of) all of the minority party's wishes, the way things have always been done. Otherwise, it is downright unAmerican!

 

Darn tootin. Also, if any plan doesn't solve all

problems and create a perfect system, and

without the big bad government taking over

anything at all (because we know everything

they do is a total fail), it must be scrapped and

we must start over from scratch. Preferably,

this should happen only after the minority is

once again the majority as well.

What a bunch of babies.

Their whole progressive world is crashing down around them. The utopia that the progressives envisioned for American is being rejected across the board.- It took independents and conservative Democrats less than a year to join Republicans in the effort to stop Pelosi, Reid and Obama. The truth is coming out - this is a conservative country and the voters will make that very clear in November.

 

A third party will emerge in November? No shit? Somebody pinch me, because I didn't think I would see it in my lifetime. A viable third party in power. Wow. At most, I get some quality government. At the very least, all the Republican and Democrat sheep on this forum waving pom poms will finally shut the fuck up.

 

Thanks for the heads up. November can't come soon enough for me.

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bunch of babies.

Careful, they don't like that "babies thing" apparently it hits to close to home. I got chastised for it a few months back.

that's precious. This is a thread crying about whether the democRATS will do what you want them to do, and you call others babies? If you had said something back when your team was busy being a bunch of big government liberals, deficit spending their way through two nation building exercises, you wouldn't have to fret about what the democrats would do. But that's the problem with liberals, you never want to take responsibility for your actions, or lack thereof.

 

E55th and Euclid Ave., is so "precious". If you had ever lived in Cleveland, you'd know that, however.. The Bill is bad for America............ It needs to die....so then we can fix health care in the United States.

 

http://s0.ilike.com/play#The+Pretenders:Precious:263888:s10808.13499975.4059364.0.2.148%2Cstd_bd37794b27c14281a5c9025bc4d18cb8

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every now and then you get a set of circumstances that pretty much sum up the farce that is the entire health care debate.

 

We just had one yesterday. The CEO of the whole shebang, who goes on TV and rails about health care costs, etc. can't be bothered to exercise the self-discipline necessary to quit smoking and eat in a rational manor, thereby assuring he will be a net drain on the system over time from a statistical perspective.

 

What's instructive here is the lack of connection between cause and effect, and the disconnect at an individual level of the necessity of personal accountability. The overall health of the country is degrading at a dramatic rate. Associated costs are skyrocketing. Add to that the demographics of the population, and the reality is this legislation doesn't even place a pinky finger into the dyke.

 

It's long past worth anyones time to fight over this legislation. It was a farce from the start. Whatever they pass I don't think you will see any appreciable change to costs, quality or efficiency of service. In fact nothing will change because the implementation will take decades. at best.

 

By then we will be at a crisis situation. a real one. Unfortunately that's what it's gonna take to make something happen for real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse of Power

 

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'--WSJ

Great editorial

 

"In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse of Power

 

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'--WSJ

Great editorial

 

"In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare".

 

You are certainly entitled to the author's opinion, but be careful; someone might think you all are being babies because you are not getting your way. Waaaah. Waaaah. Waaaaaah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse of Power

 

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'--WSJ

Great editorial

 

"In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare".

I am always amused when the tools of big business (WSJ contributors and regressive morons who post on this forum) pretend to be worried about the future of the rival political party in power that they despise.

 

LMAO at pandering puppy, fuck face flapper, and others of their ignorant ilk, who dislike the principles of democracy whenever they are the minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always amused when the tools of big business (WSJ contributors and regressive morons who post on this forum) pretend to be worried about the political party that they despise.

 

LMAO at pandering puppy, fuck face flapper, and others of their ignorant ilk.

 

Perhaps they are focusing their energy on the party that most closely represents their views, and trying to push that party into a change in course instead of the other party. What is the point of bitching about the party that doesn't have a chance of representing your own views, they're not going to change because they're never going to get your vote.

 

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse of Power

 

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'--WSJ

Great editorial

 

"In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare".

 

The Senate rules, in place since the founding, were instituted to prevent the potential abuse of a majority, to protect minority rights and prevent radical change without a significant consensus. The democrat plan to ram though this nationalization of healthcare is tyranny in action. If successful, it will have serious repercussions. The fact that it is even contemplated by Obama is testimony to his arrogance and thirst for power, not to mention his utter contempt for the will of the American People who overwhelming oppose this new expansion of the nanny state.

 

 

"If Obamacare does indeed make it into law, the damage it will do to health care will be immense. But just as great a cost will be the injury done to the Senate and to the measured approach to legislation that has marked America as a deliberate and deliberating republic."-- Hewitt

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The filibuster is designed not to stop legislation by the majority, it is designed to extend debate. Its being abused by the minority party now. It is not constitutional. The dems are simply using another senate rule to override another senate rule. Get over it, just like you repubs did when you used reconciliation in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse of Power

 

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'--WSJ

Great editorial

 

"In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare".

 

You are certainly entitled to the author's opinion, but be careful; someone might think you all are being babies because you are not getting your way. Waaaah. Waaaah. Waaaaaah.

Don’t confuse anger with crying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always amused when the tools of big business (WSJ contributors and regressive morons who post on this forum) pretend to be worried about the political party that they despise.

 

LMAO at pandering puppy, fuck face flapper, and others of their ignorant ilk.

 

Perhaps they are focusing their energy on the party that most closely represents their views, and trying to push that party into a change in course instead of the other party. What is the point of bitching about the party that doesn't have a chance of representing your own views, they're not going to change because they're never going to get your vote.

 

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

"he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time" Please, are you drawing conclusions from what I did not say?

I do think the liberation of 50,000,000 people is pretty cool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

I wouldn't be so sure about a lack of votes. They're more likely looking for political cover to be able to say they incorporated GOP ideas once the bill is passed by reconciliation with R votes.

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am always amused when the tools of big business (WSJ contributors and regressive morons who post on this forum) pretend to be worried about the political party that they despise.

 

LMAO at pandering puppy, fuck face flapper, and others of their ignorant ilk.

 

Perhaps they are focusing their energy on the party that most closely represents their views, and trying to push that party into a change in course instead of the other party. What is the point of bitching about the party that doesn't have a chance of representing your own views, they're not going to change because they're never going to get your vote.

 

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

"he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time" Please, are you drawing conclusions from what I did not say?

I do think the liberation of 50,000,000 people is pretty cool.

 

Yeah, let me rephrase. I recall you being among the Bush Administrations defenders in that regard.

 

Hey, I'd love to see the entire world free and living peacefully in their own little home grown democracies. Notice the term "home grown." We can't afford to change the world. I doubt if we can afford to change ourselves, how in hell can we afford to change the world?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

Has your selective memory been so effected by the chemicals used in your Chinese Laundry that you forgot the Senate vote on the Health Care Reform Bill: 60 in favor, 39 opposed.

 

It is you and your mendacious regressive RepubliCUNT tools who put your party in front of our country that are the hypocrites.

 

Both Houses of Congress passed the Health Care Reform with sizable majorities; get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you quote my point on bi-partisanship and then translate that into me claiming it was an era of "fiscal conservatism". Quoting me is fine, but don't read between the lines, RTB. If I had wanted to assert that Reagan/Clinto days were fiscally conservative, I'd have said so myself. I didn't.

 

If you want to compare the rate of deficit spending from 1980 - 1988, please take a look at projected deficit spending from 2009 - 2019. It is a much uglier picture now than it was then and could get even uglier without some restraint. I believe that the Republicans provide that restraint.

 

Sorry RD, seriously, I just assume that fiscal conservatism is what we are all striving for and that the bipartisan efforts you mentioned were examples. And I think the Clinton/Gingrich years were a good example. But not Reagan.

 

Anyway, I'll look in hindsight at the actual numbers in about 2021 and form an opinion about Obama's fiscal legacy, just as I have about Reagan's already. Projections any more than a year or two out don't mean anything. Remember the projections when we were all discussing the best way to use the Surplus in 2000? Those weren't even relevant two years later much less today. 2019 is somewhere deep in the noise right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

 

Democrats advocate "nation building" and "government intrusion on our rights"?

 

Sol's friend is smoking some seriously good shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart...plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

Has your selective memory been so effected by the chemicals used in your Chinese Laundry that you forgot the Senate vote on the Health Care Reform Bill: 60 in favor, 39 opposed.

 

It is you and your mendacious regressive RepubliCUNT tools who put your party in front of our country that are the hypocrites.

 

Both Houses of Congress passed the Health Care Reform with sizable majorities; get over it.

 

That should still be the lead on every news show tonight.....followed by detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes it took to buy the 60 votes first time around.

 

I suppose you are just fine with BUY-partisan passage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you quote my point on bi-partisanship and then translate that into me claiming it was an era of "fiscal conservatism". Quoting me is fine, but don't read between the lines, RTB. If I had wanted to assert that Reagan/Clinto days were fiscally conservative, I'd have said so myself. I didn't.

 

If you want to compare the rate of deficit spending from 1980 - 1988, please take a look at projected deficit spending from 2009 - 2019. It is a much uglier picture now than it was then and could get even uglier without some restraint. I believe that the Republicans provide that restraint.

 

Sorry RD, seriously, I just assume that fiscal conservatism is what we are all striving for and that the bipartisan efforts you mentioned were examples. And I think the Clinton/Gingrich years were a good example. But not Reagan.

 

Anyway, I'll look in hindsight at the actual numbers in about 2021 and form an opinion about Obama's fiscal legacy, just as I have about Reagan's already. Projections any more than a year or two out don't mean anything. Remember the projections when we were all discussing the best way to use the Surplus in 2000? Those weren't even relevant two years later much less today. 2019 is somewhere deep in the noise right now.

 

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a stunning example of bipartisanship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

 

Democrats advocate "nation building" and "government intrusion on our rights"?

 

Sol's friend is smoking some seriously good shit.

Democrats are certainly less vocal in their opposition to nation building and big government than those in the GOP. That leads me to think that they might be more aligned with Dog's position than the GOP is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart...plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

Has your selective memory been so effected by the chemicals used in your Chinese Laundry that you forgot the Senate vote on the Health Care Reform Bill: 60 in favor, 39 opposed.

 

It is you and your mendacious regressive RepubliCUNT tools who put your party in front of our country that are the hypocrites.

 

Both Houses of Congress passed the Health Care Reform with sizable majorities; get over it.

 

That should still be the lead on every news show tonight.....followed by detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes it took to buy the 60 votes first time around.

 

I suppose you are just fine with BUY-partisan passage?

 

More from the Weasel-in-Chief:

 

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): “Under The Rules, The Reconciliation Process Does Not Permit That Debate. Reconciliation Is Therefore The Wrong Place For Policy Changes … In Short, The Reconciliation Process Appears To Have Lost Its Proper Meaning. A Vehicle Designed For Deficit Reduction And Fiscal Responsibility Has Been Hijacked…” “The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.” (Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, S .14150, 12/20/05)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

 

Democrats advocate "nation building" and "government intrusion on our rights"?

 

Sol's friend is smoking some seriously good shit.

Democrats are certainly less vocal in their opposition to nation building and big government than those in the GOP. That leads me to think that they might be more aligned with Dog's position than the GOP is.

 

You think these people are Republicans?

market_st_anti_war_demo_from_7th_east_feb_16_03.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart...plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

Has your selective memory been so effected by the chemicals used in your Chinese Laundry that you forgot the Senate vote on the Health Care Reform Bill: 60 in favor, 39 opposed.

 

It is you and your mendacious regressive RepubliCUNT tools who put your party in front of our country that are the hypocrites.

 

Both Houses of Congress passed the Health Care Reform with sizable majorities; get over it.

 

That should still be the lead on every news show tonight.....followed by detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes it took to buy the 60 votes first time around.

 

I suppose you are just fine with BUY-partisan passage?

George has lost his grasp on reality - Both houses voted and passed DIFFERENT BILLS Those bills were never merged by a congressional committee into a new bill and a final bill was NEVER voted on or passed. If George Bush had pulled a stunt like this with ZERO support of Democrats the howls of King George would have been heard across the land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," --Rep. Marsha Blackburn

 

 

 

 

Pelosi/Obama ego trip

 

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart...plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

Has your selective memory been so effected by the chemicals used in your Chinese Laundry that you forgot the Senate vote on the Health Care Reform Bill: 60 in favor, 39 opposed.

 

It is you and your mendacious regressive RepubliCUNT tools who put your party in front of our country that are the hypocrites.

 

Both Houses of Congress passed the Health Care Reform with sizable majorities; get over it.

That should still be the lead on every news show tonight.....followed by detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes it took to buy the 60 votes first time around.

 

I suppose you are just fine with BUY-partisan passage?

Would you cite "detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes" so that the DOJ could investigate your allegations?

 

LMAO at you, loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

 

Democrats advocate "nation building" and "government intrusion on our rights"?

 

Sol's friend is smoking some seriously good shit.

Democrats are certainly less vocal in their opposition to nation building and big government than those in the GOP. That leads me to think that they might be more aligned with Dog's position than the GOP is.

 

You think these people are Republicans?

market_st_anti_war_demo_from_7th_east_feb_16_03.jpg

Now now, we're not talking war, we're talking nation building.... I agree that democrats are more anti-war than the gop.

 

Remember Bosnia and the hubub over that? See also, Somalia, Haiti, etc., and recall Bush (version 2000) and his campaign comments about nation building (which seemed to change when he needed a justification for Iraq). As I recall, the GOP was not in favor of nation building then, or at least there was some debate on the topic within The Party. I don't recall a lot of Democratic debate on the issue of nation building.

Edit: Another cite

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you quote my point on bi-partisanship and then translate that into me claiming it was an era of "fiscal conservatism". Quoting me is fine, but don't read between the lines, RTB. If I had wanted to assert that Reagan/Clinto days were fiscally conservative, I'd have said so myself. I didn't.

 

If you want to compare the rate of deficit spending from 1980 - 1988, please take a look at projected deficit spending from 2009 - 2019. It is a much uglier picture now than it was then and could get even uglier without some restraint. I believe that the Republicans provide that restraint.

 

Sorry RD, seriously, I just assume that fiscal conservatism is what we are all striving for and that the bipartisan efforts you mentioned were examples. And I think the Clinton/Gingrich years were a good example. But not Reagan.

 

Anyway, I'll look in hindsight at the actual numbers in about 2021 and form an opinion about Obama's fiscal legacy, just as I have about Reagan's already. Projections any more than a year or two out don't mean anything. Remember the projections when we were all discussing the best way to use the Surplus in 2000? Those weren't even relevant two years later much less today. 2019 is somewhere deep in the noise right now.

 

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

 

That was what the summit was about, really. Not

to woo Republicans into voting for anything,

nobody is stupid enough to believe that could

ever happen, but to get them on record saying

what they would like. The Reconciliation tweaks

will include a lot of those things. Sort of short

circuits the propaganda a bit.

 

They passed the Senate bill. It's in the House.

Needs their approval, the President signature,

and that's that.

 

Here's the deal. It's got a lot of

flaws. They intended to hash those out, but

Teddy croaked, and Croakly choked, and

large changes are no longer possible. So now,

the situation is that Pelosi has to convince

the House to pass the Senate bill as is. Not

as easy as it sounds. There are a lot of things

that are completely unacceptable to the Left

in the House, but many of them can be addressed

with Reconciliation. It's just icing on the

cake that most of them are things that either

the Republicans approve of, of have even

thought of themselves, like the exchanges.

 

Here's where things get tricky. The House has

to trust that the Senate will amend it's

own bill. They must bend over to hike this ball,

and that is a very vulnerable position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FLASHBACK OBAMA:

 

"DEMS SHOULD NOT PASS HEALTHCARE WITH A 50-PLUS-1 STRATEGY"

"IF we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority"

 

 

http://www.breitbart...plus-1-strategy

 

On the other hand, as he said later, "Fuck you, America". "We'll do what we want."

That should be the lead to every news show tonight - Americans deserve to know the hypocrite we elected

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

Has your selective memory been so effected by the chemicals used in your Chinese Laundry that you forgot the Senate vote on the Health Care Reform Bill: 60 in favor, 39 opposed.

 

It is you and your mendacious regressive RepubliCUNT tools who put your party in front of our country that are the hypocrites.

 

Both Houses of Congress passed the Health Care Reform with sizable majorities; get over it.

 

That should still be the lead on every news show tonight.....followed by detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes it took to buy the 60 votes first time around.

 

I suppose you are just fine with BUY-partisan passage?

Would you cite "detailed stories rehashing the billions and billions in bribes" so that the DOJ could investigate your allegations?

 

LMAO at you, loser.

 

 

------------------------------

 

 

[quote name='TMSAIL' date='03 March 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1267638879' post='2761906'

George has lost his grasp on reality - Both houses voted and passed DIFFERENT BILLS Those bills were never merged by a congressional committee into a new bill and a final bill was NEVER voted on or passed. If George Bush had pulled a stunt like this with ZERO support of Democrats the howls of King George would have been heard across the land.

BUSH SUPPORTER,

 

It is you who has trouble dealing with reality; that is one of the reason that you use sock puppets on this forum.

 

The two Health Care Reform Bills will most likely be reconciled no matter how much you whine, loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you quote my point on bi-partisanship and then translate that into me claiming it was an era of "fiscal conservatism". Quoting me is fine, but don't read between the lines, RTB. If I had wanted to assert that Reagan/Clinto days were fiscally conservative, I'd have said so myself. I didn't.

 

If you want to compare the rate of deficit spending from 1980 - 1988, please take a look at projected deficit spending from 2009 - 2019. It is a much uglier picture now than it was then and could get even uglier without some restraint. I believe that the Republicans provide that restraint.

 

Sorry RD, seriously, I just assume that fiscal conservatism is what we are all striving for and that the bipartisan efforts you mentioned were examples. And I think the Clinton/Gingrich years were a good example. But not Reagan.

 

Anyway, I'll look in hindsight at the actual numbers in about 2021 and form an opinion about Obama's fiscal legacy, just as I have about Reagan's already. Projections any more than a year or two out don't mean anything. Remember the projections when we were all discussing the best way to use the Surplus in 2000? Those weren't even relevant two years later much less today. 2019 is somewhere deep in the noise right now.

 

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

 

That was what the summit was about, really. Not

to woo Republicans into voting for anything,

nobody is stupid enough to believe that could

ever happen, but to get them on record saying

what they would like. The Reconciliation tweaks

will include a lot of those things. Sort of short

circuits the propaganda a bit.

 

They passed the Senate bill. It's in the House.

Needs their approval, the President signature,

and that's that.

 

Here's the deal. It's got a lot of

flaws. They intended to hash those out, but

Teddy croaked, and Croakly choked, and

large changes are no longer possible. So now,

the situation is that Pelosi has to convince

the House to pass the Senate bill as is. Not

as easy as it sounds. There are a lot of things

that are completely unacceptable to the Left

in the House, but many of them can be addressed

with Reconciliation. It's just icing on the

cake that most of them are things that either

the Republicans approve of, of have even

thought of themselves, like the exchanges.

 

Here's where things get tricky. The House has

to trust that the Senate will amend it's

own bill. They must bend over to hike this ball,

and that is a very vulnerable position.

How does Obama's bill fit into your picture? You know the one that is dramatically different than the current Senate bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a stunning example of bipartisanship.

 

That particular action wasn't a stunning example of bipartisanship, even though there were a few folks on each side that crossed party lines during the impeachment thing, but to focus on that seems a bit short sighted. A lot of very positive, bipartisan things did happen. It's a shame that you choose to focus on the bull shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a stunning example of bipartisanship.

 

That particular action wasn't a stunning example of bipartisanship, even though there were a few folks on each side that crossed party lines during the impeachment thing, but to focus on that seems a bit short sighted. A lot of very positive, bipartisan things did happen. It's a shame that you choose to focus on the bull shit.

 

Well it's kind of hard to forget bullshit like shutting down the Federal government and impeaching the president of the US over a blow job.

 

Bipartisanship, indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='TMSAIL' date='03 March 2010 - 10:13 AM' How does Obama's bill fit into your picture? You know the one that is dramatically different than the current Senate bill.

 

In what way are they dramatic changes?

Hmm Public option comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog has said that he supports nation building, financed by deficit spending. (Dog, please correct me if I am mistaken on that factual point). While Dog had one post during the Bush years decrying Bush spending, he also did not speak out against government intrusion on our rights during that time. The democrats are closer to those positions than the GOP. Why should Dog waste his time trying to change the GOP if they don't represent his interests? His time is better spent pushing the democrats to do things more in line with his desires.

 

Democrats advocate "nation building" and "government intrusion on our rights"?

 

Sol's friend is smoking some seriously good shit.

Democrats are certainly less vocal in their opposition to nation building and big government than those in the GOP. That leads me to think that they might be more aligned with Dog's position than the GOP is.

 

You think these people are Republicans?

market_st_anti_war_demo_from_7th_east_feb_16_03.jpg

Now now, we're not talking war, we're talking nation building.... I agree that democrats are more anti-war than the gop.

 

Remember Bosnia and the hubub over that? See also, Somalia, Haiti, etc., and recall Bush (version 2000) and his campaign comments about nation building (which seemed to change when he needed a justification for Iraq). As I recall, the GOP was not in favor of nation building then, or at least there was some debate on the topic within The Party. I don't recall a lot of Democratic debate on the issue of nation building.

Edit: Another cite

 

The Iraq War was wholly about "nation building."

 

It is disingenuous to dismiss it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='TMSAIL' date='03 March 2010 - 10:13 AM' How does Obama's bill fit into your picture? You know the one that is dramatically different than the current Senate bill.

 

In what way are they dramatic changes?

Hmm Public option comes to mind.

 

The public option is not in Obamas bill.

 

Note: I deleted that because somehow it was

showing what I wrote in both your quote box

and below. Yet in the editor, it showed your

quote unchanged. This thing has some bugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the glitches in the new boards - The public option is in the original senate bill - so if that bill is passed by the house and signed by Obama Do you really think they can simply pull it out with reconciliation?

corrected it is the house bill that contains the public option

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks RTB - The biggest issue here, of immediate concern to me based on the HCR debate, is the concept of bipartisanship. For much of the Reagan/Clinton years bipartisanship was prevalent, mostly due to necessity, but also because we had more civil leadership not as driven by political gain. I miss that.

 

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

Yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a stunning example of bipartisanship.

 

That particular action wasn't a stunning example of bipartisanship, even though there were a few folks on each side that crossed party lines during the impeachment thing, but to focus on that seems a bit short sighted. A lot of very positive, bipartisan things did happen. It's a shame that you choose to focus on the bull shit.

 

Well it's kind of hard to forget bullshit like shutting down the Federal government and impeaching the president of the US over a blow job.

 

Bipartisanship, indeed.

Like so many of his fellow regressive RepubliCUNTS, puppy dog has a selective memory.

 

Senate vote: perjury charge; voting guilty (45 Rep, 0 Dem)

 

Senate vote: obstruction of justice charge; (50 Rep, 0 Dem)

 

 

P.S.

By the way, puppy, are your allegations of "the billions and billions in bribes" ready for submission to the DOJ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaked Excerpts From Obama's Fuck-You-America Speech

 

"I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their own health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients.

 

The proposal I've put forward gives Americans more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn't want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor."

 

***

 

"So this is our proposal. This is where we've ended up. It's an approach that has been debated and changed and I believe improved over the last year.
It incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans - including some of the ideas that Republicans offered during the health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform and curbing waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system.

 

 

Republicans didn't suggest funding state grants to explore possible, hypothetical malpractice reform.

 

"My proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that had no place in health care reform - provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans."

Still lacking? Provisions that win individual votes in the American electorate.

 

"***"
At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law."

 

That's the "We have to prove we can govern" nonsense.

 

"Governing" has generally consisted of securing the consent of the governed previously in America. But that's too onerous for the Sheep of God, so governance is now defined without that part.

 

 

 

 

--Courtesy ACE

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of New lab coats in the room with Obama when he is giving his speech. Americans are so easily swayed by all those TV doctors in the shot - NOT

Link to post
Share on other sites