In a word Classless

[SOREHOOF]

It says page not found. Help me out here. I didn't just get a virus here did I? My mother warned me about women like you!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

It says page not found. Help me out here. I didn't just get a virus here did I? My mother warned me about women like you!

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Try this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47705.html

Politico.com
Click on "Opinion"
Click on "Joe Scarborough" column

Ignore the Sarah Palin stuff, more about the direction of the GOP

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

You kiss your mother with that mouth?

Try this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47705.html

Politico.com
Click on "Opinion"
Click on "Joe Scarborough" column

Ignore the Sarah Palin stuff, more about the direction of the GOP

Got it that time. What do you think I think? I believe that the only people who were seriously "wronged" here were the victims and their families. I'm guessing these high profile media types will get over their own hurt feelings eventually. I don't think the knee jerkers in D.C. should be using this tragedy to call into question our First and Second Amendment rights as law abiding citizens. If they can weaken the First Amendment, the rest fall like a house of cards. Congress sounds like a 2nd grade teacher telling everyone to be civil in their discourse when they are the biggest hypocrites around. You do know that a Dem invented the bullseye map, right. It appears old Joe didn't. Both sides are equally guilty.

[Riot]

That was mostly the 'ignore' part

Mostly I was interested in what you thought about the last half page or so - do you think that is the successful tack, or not? Do you think the conversation should stay where it is (far left vs far right, polarized, distinct, very holdfast) or come more to the middle? Do you think the winning party in 2012 will hold firm to the extremes of it's party, or moderate to an extent?

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

That was mostly the 'ignore' part

Mostly I was interested in what you thought about the last half page or so - do you think that is the successful tack, or not? Do you think the conversation should stay where it is (far left vs far right, polarized, distinct, very holdfast) or come more to the middle? Do you think the winning party in 2012 will hold firm to the extremes of it's party, or moderate to an extent?

Yes the left should come more to the middle. Compromise seems to be a forgotten art. No one should compromise when it comes to the Bill of Rights. In America our rights do not come as a gift from the Govt, their job is to protect our rights as outlined in the Constitution. No I don't think anything is going to change. The Repubs and Dems are 2 sides of the same coin flipping and flopping, and taking care of whoever is buttering their bread at any given time. If Obamacare is such a great thing why are waivers being granted to Corporations and Unions who are favored by the Administration? The same ones who lobbied so hard to see it become law. Political payback?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

If Obamacare is such a great thing why are waivers being granted to Corporations and Unions who are favored by the Administration? The same ones who lobbied so hard to see it become law. Political payback?

Passing that legislation took a very long time. There was so much "possible" about what could be in the bill, I think that, once the final form took shape, those were given out quickly simply to assaug the immediate fears of some corps regarding costs. Even though the provision kick-ins are slow, over a few years.

If the GOP doesn't like something in there, they simply have to bring a bill to the floor to eliminate that part.

It's a very good bill, but it actually favors insurance companies a bit (something people don't realize) Good portions of this bill are essentially what the GOP proposed a few years back, based upon recommendations from the insurance companies (which is why 100% GOP obstructionism was so hilarious to watch).

The "repeal" in whole is nonsensical as very good benefits have already kicked in (especially as the GOP has zero "replace" plan created), it certainly can be adjusted, added to, changed. Like Medicare, it should be a work in progress.

My parents are on Medicare, and they don't like Obama and don't like the healthcare bill - I asked them a week ago how they liked that their donut hole costs were now cut in half, and that their preventive visits were now free with no copay. "Oh, really? Well, that's good!" Yeah, it is

Today a "replacement" bill (pushed hard by the insurance companies) was supposed to be proposed in Congress encompassing selling insurance across state lines. Selling insurance across state lines would be a terrible thing for the public, as it would release insurance companies from virtually all regulatory controls, which are done on the state, not the national level (why the companies have pushed that for years, and are still pushing it now) Why is Connecticut the home base for so many insurance companies? Little to no regulatory control.

It's like when my insurance company rescinded (6 months later) paying for an expensive surgery I received, that they had already promised the doctor and hospital they'd pay for - as my state insurance board told me, "there's nothing we can do, there are no regulations preventing them backing out of the contract they have with you at their whim". They can't do that any more.

The latest polls show that now, after only the initial provisions have kicked in, only 18% to 26% are in favor of complete repeal. Everyone else says keep it, or make it stronger, or change things as needed. The GOP's promise of "repeal and replace" sounded good as a campaign promise months ago, but now that the public is more aware of the benefits of the bill, and the majority of the public doesn't want it to go anywhere.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Passing that legislation took a very long time. There was so much "possible" about what could be in the bill, I think that, once the final form took shape, those were given out quickly simply to assaug the immediate fears of some corps regarding costs. Even though the provision kick-ins are slow, over a few years.

If the GOP doesn't like something in there, they simply have to bring a bill to the floor to eliminate that part.

It's a very good bill, but it actually favors insurance companies a bit (something people don't realize) Good portions of this bill are essentially what the GOP proposed a few years back, based upon recommendations from the insurance companies (which is why 100% GOP obstructionism was so hilarious to watch).

The "repeal" in whole is nonsensical as very good benefits have already kicked in (especially as the GOP has zero "replace" plan created), it certainly can be adjusted, added to, changed. Like Medicare, it should be a work in progress.

My parents are on Medicare, and they don't like Obama and don't like the healthcare bill - I asked them a week ago how they liked that their donut hole costs were now cut in half, and that their preventive visits were now free with no copay. "Oh, really? Well, that's good!" Yeah, it is

Today a "replacement" bill (pushed hard by the insurance companies) was supposed to be proposed in Congress encompassing selling insurance across state lines. Selling insurance across state lines would be a terrible thing for the public, as it would release insurance companies from virtually all regulatory controls, which are done on the state, not the national level (why the companies have pushed that for years, and are still pushing it now) Why is Connecticut the home base for so many insurance companies? Little to no regulatory control.

It's like when my insurance company rescinded (6 months later) paying for an expensive surgery I received, that they had already promised the doctor and hospital they'd pay for - as my state insurance board told me, "there's nothing we can do, there are no regulations preventing them backing out of the contract they have with you at their whim". They can't do that any more.

The latest polls show that now, after only the initial provisions have kicked in, only 18% to 26% are in favor of complete repeal. Everyone else says keep it, or make it stronger, or change things as needed. The GOP's promise of "repeal and replace" sounded good as a campaign promise months ago, but now that the public is more aware of the benefits of the bill, and the majority of the public doesn't want it to go anywhere.

Medicare has been cut and now EVERYBODY is on the new Medicare. From what I understand the way that the bill is written, the forced insurance mandate part of it can't just be taken out. If it gets shot down the whole shebang goes up in smoke. Sorry about the violent rhetoric, I was trying to be creative.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why do u argue politics here?
r u tryin to convert people?

most of us just like arguing.

only the really dumb ones think anything they say actually gets traction.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by merasmag

why do u argue politics here?
r u tryin to convert people?

No, most people like to "argue" politics because they find politics a fascinating subject, and they like to debate/argue.

Nobody thinks they'll "convert" people. I hope.

[Antitrust32]

I try to "convert" people (women)!



but that does not involve politics...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I try to "convert" people (women)!



but that does not involve politics...

Ellen or Portia? Who'd you go with?