In a word Classless

[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

Those two guys are the only "new black panthers around".

Think again Riot. National G isn't as biased as most. This is very real. I'm not trashing them. They have rights to peacebly assemble for redress of grievances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmrDIFWd6cM

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Think again Riot. National G isn't as biased as most. This is very real. I'm not trashing them. They have rights to peacebly assemble for redress of grievances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmrDIFWd6cM

Fear them! It's real!

Let's go back to why that picture is here, and what the discussion was about. That picture of two guys standing outside a polling place (and not interfering with anybody, there was no voter "intimidation" found, no matter how much Faux News tried to create the controversy and fear) was from November of 2008 (over two years ago), and was posted by Dell as evidence that the Democratic Party of the United States is calling for people to be killed, for saying our government may have to be overthrown, and calling for citizens to be armed and dangerous.

Ah, no.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Riot

I know what the math is, and yes, it is a bitch - I figured both H & S would be GOP in 2012.

But watching what these guys are doing so far: they are not starting out strong at all, the Tea Party will do nothing but harm them over the next 2 years, as will caving to the extreme wingnut base (as they are doing daily now, see Pawlenty). They'd better turn it around if they want to win what they "should". Don't forget the Presidential wave will carry some Dems.

The Dems don't have very many blue dogs left, it's become pretty polarized between red and blue. Will be a very interesting election.

Unbelievable that no GOP (well, one has) has declared yet for President. I think they have written it off, and none of the truly viable candidates want to risk the reputation harm of the guaranteed loss.

I think there will be a strong resurgence of the "moderate" Republican, as some guys are simply already drawing the line in the sand and refusing to compromise their intelligence and ethics when facing the more crazy rightest part of the party. Joe Scarborough had a nice editorial in Politico the other day. But I think this will fracture, not unite, the party. The convention in Tampa will be exciting - sorta like the 1960's.

I'll go on the limb right now saying Jeb Bush-Rubio in 2016.

orrin hatch in utah and richard lugar in indiana will both face tea party primary challenges and i wouldn't be surprised to see either one lose. utah will never elect a democrat and unless unemployment is a lot better in 2012 (which would be a surprise) i doubt a democrat can win in indiana.

it's too early for anyone to declare for president. obama hasn't made his announcement either. look for all of those in the fall. right now the serious candidates are still raising money and building organizations for the primaries. i wouldn't dismiss the politics of resentment. it's worked for 50 years. why wouldn't it keep working? they'll be plenty of republican candidates.

[Riot]

Good points. It will be fun to watch.

I do think the Tea Party will lose, not gain, popularity and influence over the next two years, based upon the performance of the TP currently in Congress (& Senate). Even if the only standard for the TP is to obstruct and vote no, I think they will fail in the TP eyes back home. Some are all ready holding fundraisers and raising ire in the TP hometown folks' eyes.

BUT - the debt ceiling will be the first test, no?

[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?

[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.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Fear them! It's real! was posted by Dell as evidence that the Democratic Party of the United States is calling for people to be killed, for saying our government may have to be overthrown, and calling for citizens to be armed and dangerous.

Ah, no.

Again here's a mixed batch of lefties calling for and actually predicting (hoping?) for an overthrow/riots.

The irony of watching the left purport the country is more racist/divisive than ever while a Harvard educated black man sits in the white house is priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFlSrlS-vtM

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Those two guys are the only "new black panthers around".

Let's hope so!!!!

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

orrin hatch in utah and richard lugar in indiana will both face tea party primary challenges and i wouldn't be surprised to see either one lose. utah will never elect a democrat and unless unemployment is a lot better in 2012 (which would be a surprise) i doubt a democrat can win in indiana.

it's too early for anyone to declare for president. obama hasn't made his announcement either. look for all of those in the fall. right now the serious candidates are still raising money and building organizations for the primaries. i wouldn't dismiss the politics of resentment. it's worked for 50 years. why wouldn't it keep working? they'll be plenty of republican candidates.

Yea the tea party wack jobs didn't care much for Lugar voting on his own and not follow party lines. Let's face it. He still follows party lines, but at least he's one Republican who has some independent bias.

With that said, I'd be in utter shock if Lugar is not re-elected. I just don't see it happening.

As for Hatch, I don't know about too well to know how much support he gets from his own state.

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Again here's a mixed batch of lefties calling for and actually predicting (hoping?) for an overthrow/riots.

The irony of watching the left purport the country is more racist/divisive than ever while a Harvard educated black man sits in the white house is priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFlSrlS-vtM

When you quote people, Dell, you point out that it is is a quote by using " on either side of the other persons words, and you properly attribute the quote.

[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?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Ellen or Portia? Who'd you go with?

Portia easy


I'd play golf with Ellen and tell jokes tho. She's a funny chick.

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Medicare has been cut and now EVERYBODY is on the new Medicare. .

I don't know what you mean by that - no, that didn't happen literally. There is no public option. Maybe that's not what you meant?

The funding for Medicare that was cut in the PPACA in future years is because, with the improvements as a result of the health care bill, those funds will no longer be needed. It is a cut due to cost savings.

And "shot down" isn't violent rhetoric. You're not having your constituents shoot a gun at a target with your opponents initials on it, or anything ...