Well Repugs, it's been 3 days.
annika1980
dene
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ec0d4e2a-e04f-4bb2...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Ass still sore?
Ask again in November.
-Greg
kenpitts
> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ec0d4e2a-e04f-4bb2...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Ass still sore?
>
> Ask again in November.
>
> -Greg
I am wondering, I wasn't around. Were these lefties so smug when Scott
Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy?
Democrats won't have any ass to be sore come November. Theirs will be
like a cake of C4 was attached and detonated. The Dems will pay for
what they did Sunday.
I read the other day that Harry Reid has an 8% favorable rating
nationally. What was th lowest W ever had? Mid twenties? There is a
real chance Reid will be voted out of office while the sitting
Majority Leader of the Senate. Can you say "Jim Wright"? Reid is down
as much as 20% in the Nevada polls.
We'll see. It is going to be great. What goes around comes around.
Ken
Kommienezuspadt
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Ass still sore?
Not necessary -- 15 yard penalty for taunting
but I do wonder when Rush is leaving the country (as he said) to go to Costa
Rica (where he said he would go) - where they have universal coverage & a
longer life expectancy that the US.
kenpitts
> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
As soon as Alec Baldwin leaves.
Ken
Moderate
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Ass still sore?
We still have two more days before Obama signs the Bill. The five day
waiting period to allow American's to review the Bill was one of several
Obama policies that I supported.
Oops, Just another Obama lie.
Noons
> Ass still sore?
http://annika1980.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/worldrecord.php
hands still sore?
Kommienezuspadt
"kenpitts" <ken....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6966c282-f99a-4af4...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Ken
===
So Rush is influenced by Alec Baldwin?
Anyway -- I'll make that trade.
Kommienezuspadt
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
news:4bab3f5c$0$12424$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
You score one point -- sadly you trail by a bunch -- but I'll give you
credit -- he did not live up to that promise
Moderate
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
news:86Iqn.1580$u62...@newsfe10.iad...
It is hard to count the number of promises Obama broke on this deal.
C-Span Cameras in committee
Bipartisanship
Pork
Google for Government
Fiscal responsibility
Shining the light on lobbyists
Average reduction of $2,500.00 per family in health care costs.
Simplified health care paperwork.
His blueprint for change is an amazing reference document.
annika1980
> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
How do you figure? It was posted 3 days before the vote, 5 days
before he signed it.
If you didn't read it that's your problem.
Another Obama promise fulfilled. Isn't it great to finally have a
President who does what he says?
annika1980
>
> > but I do wonder when Rush is leaving the country (as he said) to go to Costa
> > Rica (where he said he would go) - where they have universal coverage & a
> > longer life expectancy that the US.
>
> As soon as Alec Baldwin leaves.
>
> Ken
Ok, so they're both liars. The only difference is that nobody listens
to Alec Baldwin to get their political info.
But to be fair to the blowhard, Rush did say he would leave in 5
years. Start the clock.
MNMikeW
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> Ass still sore?
A little, but the Gold Bond seems to have taken care of it. Of course it
doesn't compare to the sore ass you are about to get in Nov.
Lloyd Parsons
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Regardless of which party ends up in power in Nov., we'll all have a
sore ass!
And I personally don't think things will happen the way you think they
will. Just say no isn't the way to win an election, and so far that has
been all too often the case for the republican members of congress.
While they may not have been able to get anything they wanted because
they were out of power, they could have been making cogent arguments to
the public. They didn't bother. Mostly blathering, hilariously
constructed bullshit charts, and vile rhetoric was instead the choice.
Pretty poor showing, imo.
--
Lloyd
John B.
> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
That's all you've got, isn't it? November 4 is more than 7 months
away. Any number of things could happen to counter the anger that some
people feel about the health care bill. Economy could go up.
Unemployment could go down. There could be a bull market in stocks.
The U.S. could make major gains in Afghanistan. I wouldn't be so
confident about a Democratic ass-whipping if I were you.
Moderate
*************************************************************
Really? There does not appear to be a valid link on the Whitehouse website.
MNMikeW
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-1D12...@news.eternal-september.org...
rejected last night.
MNMikeW
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2b8fe4a-92bb-4a94...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------
This is true John. But I don't hold out much faith. Especially with
immigration and cap&tax in the batters box.
Lloyd Parsons
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes and they should have been. In previous votes, even when things were
put in from the Reps they still voted no. Since there was no indication
that was going to change regardless of concessions, then the party in
power says screw it.
Has happened many times with many bills by both parties.
--
Lloyd
John B.
> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca6a2f82-bfe3-4675...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 25, 6:48 am, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
>
> > "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ec0d4e2a-e04f-4bb2...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Ass still sore?
>
> > We still have two more days before Obama signs the Bill. The five day
> > waiting period to allow American's to review the Bill was one of several
> > Obama policies that I supported.
>
> > Oops, Just another Obama lie.
>
> How do you figure? It was posted 3 days before the vote, 5 days
> before he signed it.
> If you didn't read it that's your problem.
> Another Obama promise fulfilled. Isn't it great to finally have a
> President who does what he says?
> *************************************************************
>
> Really? There does not appear to be a valid link on the Whitehouse website.
Try thomas.gov
Bobster
"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:hofggj$kg0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Wow. That is an impressive record.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
If the economy improves, they Dems will do OK. If it doesn't...well
they have run the economy since 2006...and it hasn't gone all that
well!
The Dems have also alienated the mainstream with the healthcare
debate. They need the economy to counter this.
Reality though, the real estate market is the worst on record right
now. The FDIC is in the red. The foreclosure rate for FHA mortgages is
9%..and the system is apparently set up for 2%, and the system has no
money. The real estate market is still the 800 lb gorilla in the mix
and since they failed to do what they said they would do with
TARP...get rid of the idiot mortgage backed derivative type
"assets"...it is going to do it's damage...if it happens before
November, the dems will be slaughtered, maybe down to less than 100
members in the house. If the economy stays bad,but doesn't crash, the
dems will, IMHO, lose 100 or so house seats. If the economy improves,
the dems will retain majorities in the house and senate.
Senate is tough to figure. Reid is a cagey politician, and I wouldn't
be so quick to write him off. Wisconsin could be a GOP pickup though,
as ole Russ has been pretty ineffectual during all this, and Barbara
Boxer has really not done well this past year, and she could go too.
Dodd is no sure loss either. Another cagey veteran if he runs. SO who
knows? You'd figure Arkansas and Louisiana would be GOP senate
pickups, but again, who knows. No one can screw up an election like
the GOP!
JMHO though!
MNMikeW
"Dinosaur_Sr" <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:e9246483-0afe-47ba...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
JMHO though!
========================
True Rob. The R's sure F'd up the last one. I don't see the economy coming
around that much by Nov. but who knows.
BAR
@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, annik...@aol.com says...
>
> Ass still sore?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp
Give it time.
BAR
says...
He hasn't lived up to any promises.
Kommienezuspadt
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2615bf354...@news.giganews.com...
I see no point in attempting to teach to the unteachable.
Noons
> "Noons" <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
Hey, what can I say? It's annika at his best!
;)
Howard Brazee
<fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
>If the economy improves, they Dems will do OK. If it doesn't...well
>they have run the economy since 2006...and it hasn't gone all that
>well!
Agreed.
>The Dems have also alienated the mainstream with the healthcare
>debate. They need the economy to counter this.
True, but not nearly as much as the Republicans have and are
continuing to do. So who's the mainstream going to go to?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
MNMikeW
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
Dinosaur_Sr
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
>
> >If the economy improves, they Dems will do OK. If it doesn't...well
> >they have run the economy since 2006...and it hasn't gone all that
> >well!
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The Dems have also alienated the mainstream with the healthcare
> >debate. They need the economy to counter this.
>
> True, but not nearly as much as the Republicans have and are
> continuing to do. So who's the mainstream going to go to?
>
hostility at people showing up at town halls to voice their opinions.
Like it or not, the means are the thing, not the ends. For some silly
reason, Americans prefer more democratic means of making government
policy than the Dems have shown this time, and IMHO that is where the
alienation has occurred.
Of course, polling shows the people don't think much of the GOP as a
group either, but the basis of that negative response is not the same
thing. The dems have really alienated a lot of people who were once
their core, and I personally don't see a way back for them with the
current group in charge. About the only person who could do it for
them would be Hilary Clinton, but I don't think Obama is going to
resign in favor of her.
Another thing about the mainstream is that they vote. 25 year olds
living in their parents home have a lot of time to squack a lot, but
numbers have shown they don't vote.
John B.
wrote:
Any members of the Democrats' "core" who are alienated are alienated
because the bill didn't go far enough for them, e.g., no public
option. They are not going to vote Republican.
Kommienezuspadt
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:813vtb...@mid.individual.net...
I sure --- yeah --- lay it on me....
BAR
says...
There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is a
failure to perform.
Dinosaur_Sr
I live in eastern Kentucky. Solid Democrat, and none of them will vote
Democrat in November. I spend a lot of time in central Ohio. Solid
Democrat and none of them will vote Democrat in November either.
But good luck to Y'all!
Carbon
> On Mar 25, 4:29 am, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
>> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ec0d4e2a-
>>
>>> Ass still sore?
>>
>> Ask again in November.
>
> I am wondering, I wasn't around. Were these lefties so smug when Scott
> Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy?
>
> Democrats won't have any ass to be sore come November. Theirs will be
> like a cake of C4 was attached and detonated. The Dems will pay for
> what they did Sunday.
>
> I read the other day that Harry Reid has an 8% favorable rating
> nationally. What was th lowest W ever had? Mid twenties? There is a
> real chance Reid will be voted out of office while the sitting
> Majority Leader of the Senate. Can you say "Jim Wright"? Reid is down
> as much as 20% in the Nevada polls.
>
> We'll see. It is going to be great. What goes around comes around.
Obama will lose a few seats. But it won't be anything like the bloodbath
you true believers keep fantasizing about.
Carbon
> In article <FPSqn.18130$y13....@newsfe12.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
> says...
>> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2615bf354...@news.giganews.com...
>>> In article <86Iqn.1580$u62...@newsfe10.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
>>> says...
>>>> "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bab3f5c$0$12424$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>>> "annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ec0d4e2a-
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ass still sore?
>>>>>
>>>>> We still have two more days before Obama signs the Bill. The five
>>>>> day waiting period to allow American's to review the Bill was one
>>>>> of several Obama policies that I supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops, Just another Obama lie.
>>>>
>>>> You score one point -- sadly you trail by a bunch -- but I'll give
>>>> you credit -- he did not live up to that promise
>>>
>>> He hasn't lived up to any promises.
>>
>> I see no point in attempting to teach to the unteachable.
>
> There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is a
> failure to perform.
Exactly. The healthcare system is a big, corrupt mess. In the past, both
Democratic and Republican administrations tried to push reform through
and all have failed. Until now. As much as I hate to break it to all you
denialist true believers, this success is not going to be lost on the
voters.
Carbon
Damn, that didn't take long! Record broken.
http://noons.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/worldrecord.php
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>
>Obama will lose a few seats. But it won't be anything like the bloodbath
>you true believers keep fantasizing about.
The president's party *always* loses some seats.
But Republicans need to switch from trying to persuade the swing
voters to vote against Democrats. They need to persuade them to vote
for Republicans - to offer a vision that persuades moderates.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Exactly. The healthcare system is a big, corrupt mess. In the past, both
>Democratic and Republican administrations tried to push reform through
>and all have failed. Until now. As much as I hate to break it to all you
>denialist true believers, this success is not going to be lost on the
>voters.
What happens if they don't notice significant change? Do they
condemn the Democrats for failing to lower their costs? Or do they
laugh at the Republicans for declaring the sky is falling?
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On 27 Mar 2010 16:58:41 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Obama will lose a few seats. But it won't be anything like the bloodbath
> >you true believers keep fantasizing about.
>
> The president's party *always* loses some seats.
>
> But Republicans need to switch from trying to persuade the swing
> voters to vote against Democrats. They need to persuade them to vote
> for Republicans - to offer a vision that persuades moderates.
The current administration and go-along house and senate are giving
people enough of a reason to vote against Democrats.
John B.
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:17:38 -0700, kenpitts wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 4:29 am, "dene" <d...@remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> >> "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ec0d4e2a-
>
> >>> Ass still sore?
>
> >> Ask again in November.
>
> > I am wondering, I wasn't around. Were these lefties so smug when Scott
> > Brown was elected to replace Ted Kennedy?
>
> > Democrats won't have any ass to be sore come November. Theirs will be
> > like a cake of C4 was attached and detonated. The Dems will pay for
> > what they did Sunday.
>
> > I read the other day that Harry Reid has an 8% favorable rating
> > nationally. What was th lowest W ever had? Mid twenties? There is a
> > real chance Reid will be voted out of office while the sitting
> > Majority Leader of the Senate. Can you say "Jim Wright"? Reid is down
> > as much as 20% in the Nevada polls.
>
> > We'll see. It is going to be great. What goes around comes around.
>
> Obama will lose a few seats. But it won't be anything like the bloodbath
> you true believers keep fantasizing about.
Especially if conservatives and Tea Party types continue acting like
thugs -- posing death threats to members of Congress, throwing bricks
through their windows, spitting on them, etc. If they think this type
of behavior -- along with the Republican leadership's refusal to
denounce it -- is going to work in their favor in November, they're in
for a rude surprise. If they want to win, they should put the health
care bill behind them and start trying to be constructive.
kenpitts
> On Mar 25, 6:43 am, kenpitts <ken.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > but I do wonder when Rush is leaving the country (as he said) to go to Costa
> > > Rica (where he said he would go) - where they have universal coverage & a
> > > longer life expectancy that the US.
>
> > As soon as Alec Baldwin leaves.
>
> > Ken
>
> Ok, so they're both liars. The only difference is that nobody listens
> to Alec Baldwin to get their political info.
>
> But to be fair to the blowhard, Rush did say he would leave in 5
> years. Start the clock.
Why do people like him and Barbra Streisand position themselves to be
taken seriously? Baldwin is a better fit at the Academy Awards.
Ken
Howard Brazee
>> But Republicans need to switch from trying to persuade the swing
>> voters to vote against Democrats. They need to persuade them to vote
>> for Republicans - to offer a vision that persuades moderates.
>
>The current administration and go-along house and senate are giving
>people enough of a reason to vote against Democrats.
And the current Republicans are giving people enough reason to vote
against Republicans.
So who's going to give us something to vote *for*?
Howard Brazee
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Especially if conservatives and Tea Party types continue acting like
>thugs -- posing death threats to members of Congress, throwing bricks
>through their windows, spitting on them, etc. If they think this type
>of behavior -- along with the Republican leadership's refusal to
>denounce it -- is going to work in their favor in November, they're in
>for a rude surprise. If they want to win, they should put the health
>care bill behind them and start trying to be constructive.
It has worked in the past (not wanting to invoke Godwin). But it
hasn't succeeded where a majority vote was necessary.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:44:58 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >> But Republicans need to switch from trying to persuade the swing
> >> voters to vote against Democrats. They need to persuade them to vote
> >> for Republicans - to offer a vision that persuades moderates.
> >
> >The current administration and go-along house and senate are giving
> >people enough of a reason to vote against Democrats.
>
> And the current Republicans are giving people enough reason to vote
> against Republicans.
>
> So who's going to give us something to vote *for*?
November is fast approaching. The dissatisfaction with the Democrats
will not subside. The Democrats will see Health Care as a victory and
try to push through more anti-liberty legislation before they loose
their majorities.
Carbon
It will be interesting to hear the rationalizations when the election
doesn't go the way you hope.
Jack Hollis
>November is fast approaching. The dissatisfaction with the Democrats
>will not subside. The Democrats will see Health Care as a victory and
>try to push through more anti-liberty legislation before they loose
>their majorities.
Last time I looked at the RCP 2010 election data, if the election were
held now, the Republicans would pick up 7 Senate seats and around 22
seats in the House. Neither number would be enough for a majority.
The House is more important than the Senate because if the Republicans
could get control of the House, they could put the breaks on Obamacare
by not funding it. You can't hire 17,000 IRS Agents if there's no
money in the budget for it.
John B.
The House cannot arbitrarily decide not to fund a government program
that the House itself created through legislation. If it could do
that, the result would be utter chaos. If the House wanted to defund
some part of the health care law, it would have to pass new
legislation saying, "no federal money shall be spent on this program."
That, obviously, would never be enacted. I don't know where you got
the idea that the IRS was going to hire 17,000 agents. The IRS will
have nothing to do with investigating non-compliance with the
insurance mandate. That's according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman
(a Bush appointee).
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=11097
BAR
cf15b7...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
No money apropriated and the government cannot operate. Think back to
1995.
John B.
> In article <c2ece85d-b7a0-4048-8afc-
> cf15b77ac...@l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, johnb...@gmail.com says...
> 1995.
No money appropriated by the start of the fiscal year and government
can't operate. The duty of Congress to fund the government through the
appropriations process is in the Constitution. I assume you're
referring to Newt Gingrich's temper tantrum because he didn't like the
seat he'd been assigned on AF1. That sure worked out well for him and
the GOP.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The House cannot arbitrarily decide not to fund a government program
>that the House itself created through legislation.
"With a Democrat president for the next two and a half years, even if
we gained the majority it's going to be very difficult to repeal this
bill outright," Boehner said.
Nevertheless, Boehner said Congress could simply refuse to
approrpriate the funds needed to execute reform.
"It's going to take appropriated funds to actually come through the
process to fund the hiring of new employees to create these new
bureacuracies," Boehner said. "I can't imagine that a Republican
Congress is going to give this president the money to begin this
process."
I heard Newt Gingrich say the same thing.
Do you know something that they don't?
John B.
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:47:13 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
> >The House cannot arbitrarily decide not to fund a government program
> >that the House itself created through legislation.
>
> "With a Democrat president for the next two and a half years, even if
> we gained the majority it's going to be very difficult to repeal this
> bill outright," Boehner said.
>
> Nevertheless, Boehner said Congress could simply refuse to
> approrpriate the funds needed to execute reform.
>
> "It's going to take appropriated funds to actually come through the
> process to fund the hiring of new employees to create these new
> bureacuracies," Boehner said. "I can't imagine that a Republican
> Congress is going to give this president the money to begin this
> process."
>
>
> I heard Newt Gingrich say the same thing.
>
> Do you know something that they don't?
Boehner's a blowhard (but he's got a great tan). Notice he said "a
Republican Congress" and "this president." Congress could refuse to
appropriate funds, but it takes more than a simple majority to
override a veto. It takes 2/3 of both houses. Boehner knows that, so
he was talking out of his ass, as usual.
MNMikeW
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4bae3aff$0$4851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:47:06 -0400, BAR wrote:
>> In article <FPSqn.18130$y13....@newsfe12.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
>> says...
>>> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2615bf354...@news.giganews.com...
>>>> In article <86Iqn.1580$u62...@newsfe10.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
>>>> says...
>>>>> "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4bab3f5c$0$12424$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>>>> "annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message news:ec0d4e2a-
>>>>>> e04f-4bb2-8c1...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ass still sore?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We still have two more days before Obama signs the Bill. The five
>>>>>> day waiting period to allow American's to review the Bill was one
>>>>>> of several Obama policies that I supported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oops, Just another Obama lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> You score one point -- sadly you trail by a bunch -- but I'll give
>>>>> you credit -- he did not live up to that promise
>>>>
>>>> He hasn't lived up to any promises.
>>>
>>> I see no point in attempting to teach to the unteachable.
>>
>> There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is a
>> failure to perform.
>
> Exactly. The healthcare system is a big, corrupt mess.
And now it's going to be a big, corrupt mess run by a big corrupt
Government.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Boehner's a blowhard (but he's got a great tan). Notice he said "a
>Republican Congress" and "this president." Congress could refuse to
>appropriate funds, but it takes more than a simple majority to
>override a veto. It takes 2/3 of both houses. Boehner knows that, so
>he was talking out of his ass, as usual.
If the Republican get a one vote majority in the House, they can cut
funding for Obamacare and there's nothing that Obama can do about it.
Of course, he can refuse to sign the budget bill and shut the
government down but he can never force the House to fund his
boondoggle. So I don't think it's Boehner who's talking out of his
ass.
In any case, it's unlikely that the Republicans can win enough seats
to gain a majority, but if they do, they can stop Obamacare in its
tracks.
John B.
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:32:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
Again, they need more than a majority. They need 2/3 of both houses,
which they'll never get.
Dinosaur_Sr
I don't understand your point. The legislature can put in and take out
any spending they want. They don't "have" to include anything. For
example, they did not have to fund the Iraq War. It doesn't take a 2/3
majority to not put something in a bill. It does take a 2/3 majority
to override a veto of something, but the President can't veto nothing.
Of course the President could veto the budget for a given year, but
that probably wouldn't work out too well for him if his position was
it has to include something it does not.
I see the polls are now dropping for Obama and the health care
idea....put a whistle the popularity of the dem health plan and it
will sound like one of those German bombs from WWII! It's 1/2 way
there, it's already a bomb!
Carbon
It amazes me that all you true believers are so sure Obama's plan will
make things worse, when the US system is the most expensive in the world
with life expectancy outcomes that are average at best. Obviously the
current system is nothing to write home about.
MNMikeW
No it isn't. But what is the last program the Govt has ran successfully?
Name a program that didn't end up costing far more than projected. This bill
adds 100 or so more bureaucracies to the mix as well. The real true
believers here think this will solve everything.
John B.
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4bb12759$0$4969$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:56:34 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> >> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4bae3aff$0$4851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:47:06 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>>> says...
> >>>>> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:MPG.2615bf354...@news.giganews.com...
> >>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>> "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:4bab3f5c$0$12424$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> >>>>>>>> e04f-4bb2-8c1a-048b80d43...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>> Ass still sore?
>
> >>>>>>>> We still have two more days before Obama signs the Bill. The five
> >>>>>>>> day waiting period to allow American's to review the Bill was one
> >>>>>>>> of several Obama policies that I supported.
>
> >>>>>>>> Oops, Just another Obama lie.
>
> >>>>>>> You score one point -- sadly you trail by a bunch -- but I'll give
> >>>>>>> you credit -- he did not live up to that promise
>
> >>>>>> He hasn't lived up to any promises.
>
> >>>>> I see no point in attempting to teach to the unteachable.
>
> >>>> There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is a
> >>>> failure to perform.
>
> >>> Exactly. The healthcare system is a big, corrupt mess.
>
> >> And now it's going to be a big, corrupt mess run by a big corrupt
> >> Government.
>
> > It amazes me that all you true believers are so sure Obama's plan will
> > make things worse, when the US system is the most expensive in the world
> > with life expectancy outcomes that are average at best. Obviously the
> > current system is nothing to write home about.
>
> No it isn't. But what is the last program the Govt has ran successfully?
> Name a program that didn't end up costing far more than projected. This bill
> adds 100 or so more bureaucracies to the mix as well. The real true
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are thousands of government programs, Mike. I'm sure they aren't
all over budget.
John B.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Congress is constitutionally required to pass 13 appropriations bills
every year. With a democratic congress and a democratic president, the
budget congress starts out with mirrors the one the president sent to
it. During the appropriations process, Republicans can offer
amendments to zero out this or that program, but they will fail. If
the appropriations bill for HHS goes to the White House without the
funding the president wants for the new health care law, he'll veto it
and congress will not have the votes to override. Even when Congress
and the White House are controlled by different parties, legislative
efforts to zero out federal programs almost always fail. I can't
remember the last time it happened.
BAR
1419c7...@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Mar 29, 11:20ï¿œam, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:32:12 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> >
> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Boehner's a blowhard (but he's got a great tan). Notice he said "a
> > >Republican Congress" and "this president." Congress could refuse to
> > >appropriate funds, but it takes more than a simple majority to
> > >override a veto. It takes 2/3 of both houses. Boehner knows that, so
> > >he was talking out of his ass, as usual.
> >
> > If the Republican get a one vote majority in the House, they can cut
> > funding for Obamacare and there's nothing that Obama can do about it.
> > Of course, he can refuse to sign the budget bill and shut the
> > government down but he can never force the House to fund his
> > boondoggle. So I don't think it's Boehner who's talking out of his
> >
> > In any case, it's unlikely that the Republicans can win enough seats
> > to gain a majority, but if they do, they can stop Obamacare in its
> > tracks.
>
> Again, they need more than a majority. They need 2/3 of both houses,
> which they'll never get.
All they need to do is send a bill to the Obama and have him veto the
bill. Then it is Obama who has shutdown the government.
BAR
10g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com says...
>
> Congress is constitutionally required to pass 13 appropriations bills
> every year. With a democratic congress and a democratic president, the
> budget congress starts out with mirrors the one the president sent to
> it. During the appropriations process, Republicans can offer
> amendments to zero out this or that program, but they will fail. If
> the appropriations bill for HHS goes to the White House without the
> funding the president wants for the new health care law, he'll veto it
> and congress will not have the votes to override. Even when Congress
> and the White House are controlled by different parties, legislative
> efforts to zero out federal programs almost always fail. I can't
> remember the last time it happened.
Congress can pass the appropriations bills, they cannot force the
president to sign them.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In any case, it's unlikely that the Republicans can win enough seats
>> to gain a majority, but if they do, they can stop Obamacare in its
>> tracks.
>
>Again, they need more than a majority. They need 2/3 of both houses,
>which they'll never get.
This is the budget we're talking about. The President can choose not
to sign the budget but if he does, then the government shuts down for
lack of funds. The Congress doesn't need to override anything.
Are you sure you worked in Washington?
Jack Hollis
<fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
>> Again, they need more than a majority. They need 2/3 of both houses,
>> which they'll never get.
>
>I don't understand your point. The legislature can put in and take out
>any spending they want. They don't "have" to include anything. For
>example, they did not have to fund the Iraq War. It doesn't take a 2/3
>majority to not put something in a bill. It does take a 2/3 majority
>to override a veto of something, but the President can't veto nothing.
The President can refuse to sign the budget bill but that would not
provide funding for his health care bill. It would shut down the
government. I'm sure that the Republicans wouldn't mind that
eventuality. As Reagan found out, the President gets the blame when
the government shuts down.
Jack Hollis
>> Again, they need more than a majority. They need 2/3 of both houses,
>> which they'll never get.
>
>All they need to do is send a bill to the Obama and have him veto the
>bill. Then it is Obama who has shutdown the government.
Exactly. John seems confused on this issue.
John B.
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:22:34 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
Yes, and I still do. And you don't know what you're talking about. The
president doesn't sign "the budget." It doesn't come to him in one big
package. He signs, or doesn't sign, each of the 13 appropriations
bills that make up the discretionary portion of the budget and any
emergency supplementals and reconciliation bills that may follow. If
you're thinking the president will veto an approps. bill and then
Congress will just sit there and let parts of the government close
down indefinitely, you have a naive view of how things work here.
John B.
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:47:36 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
>
Oh, really? When Newt Gingrich shut down the government deliberately
in 1995 because he didn't like the seat he'd gotten on AF1, was it
Clinton who got the blame?
John B.
Sorry, Jack. I'm not confused in the least. Neither you nor Bert
understands the process.
assim...@borg.org
On 27-Mar-2010, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Especially if conservatives and Tea Party types continue acting like
> thugs -- posing death threats to members of Congress, throwing bricks
> through their windows, spitting on them, etc. If they think this type
> of behavior -- along with the Republican leadership's refusal to
> denounce it -- is going to work in their favor in November, they're in
> for a rude surprise. If they want to win, they should put the health
> care bill behind them and start trying to be constructive.
Please, lets have some proof that these things even happened! That window
that supposedly was attacked was on the 30th floor; must have been an inside
job! No, the only thing we know happened to any Congresscriter was a bullet
was shot thru Eric Cantor's office.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 29-Mar-2010, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is a
> > failure to perform.
>
> Exactly. The healthcare system is a big, corrupt mess. In the past, both
> Democratic and Republican administrations tried to push reform through
> and all have failed. Until now. As much as I hate to break it to all you
> denialist true believers, this success is not going to be lost on the
> voters.
a sh*t sandwich is still turdolicious, even if is wrapped in a Reform label.
--
bill-o
Dinosaur_Sr
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:56:34 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:4bae3aff$0$4851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:47:06 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>> says...
> >>>> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:MPG.2615bf354...@news.giganews.com...
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:4bab3f5c$0$12424$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> >>>>>>> e04f-4bb2-8c1a-048b80d43...@g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>>>> Ass still sore?
>
> >>>>>>> We still have two more days before Obama signs the Bill. The five
> >>>>>>> day waiting period to allow American's to review the Bill was one
> >>>>>>> of several Obama policies that I supported.
>
> >>>>>>> Oops, Just another Obama lie.
>
> >>>>>> You score one point -- sadly you trail by a bunch -- but I'll give
> >>>>>> you credit -- he did not live up to that promise
>
> >>>>> He hasn't lived up to any promises.
>
> >>>> I see no point in attempting to teach to the unteachable.
>
> >>> There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is a
> >>> failure to perform.
>
> >> Exactly. The healthcare system is a big, corrupt mess.
>
> > And now it's going to be a big, corrupt mess run by a big corrupt
> > Government.
>
> It amazes me that all you true believers are so sure Obama's plan will
> make things worse, when the US system is the most expensive in the world
> with life expectancy outcomes that are average at best. Obviously the
> current system is nothing to write home about.
That fact that you go back to the life expectancy things shows the
poor quality of your rhetoric. At least compare apples to apples.
Compare the US to all of Europe, for example, a more reasonable
comparison, if you are going to look at a stat like that. In any
event, I have never seen any data that show health care affects life
expectancy as much as say picking up the garbage...and picking up the
garbage has a big effect on life expectancy.
Dinosaur_Sr
How about comparable programs, say medicare and medicaid?
Dinosaur_Sr
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
>
> <frostb...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
> >If the economy improves, they Dems will do OK. If it doesn't...well
> >they have run the economy since 2006...and it hasn't gone all that
> >well!
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The Dems have also alienated the mainstream with the healthcare
> >debate. They need the economy to counter this.
>
> True, but not nearly as much as the Republicans have and are
> continuing to do. So who's the mainstream going to go to?
>
> --
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madison
Lesser of two evils. Right now, if the GOP came out with the notion
that you have a right to the income you earn, and there should be
legal limits to the amount of income the govt can take, they would
destroy the dems in an election. A constitutional right to the income
you earn vs the right to require someone else to pay for and then
someone else to provide you with a service, regardless of what that
service is. I'm just talking income here, not capital gains or any
money not actually worked for, be it a banker or a bricklayer...we all
have the right to the income we earn.
William Clark
<c63565a2-97ab-4c6f...@u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:19�pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:56:34 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> > > "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4bae3aff$0$4851$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:47:06 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > >>> In article <FPSqn.18130$y13.12...@newsfe12.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
> > >>> says...
> > >>>> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:MPG.2615bf354...@news.giganews.com...
> > >>>>> In article <86Iqn.1580$u62....@newsfe10.iad>, NoS...@NoThanks.net
> > >>>>> says...
> > >>>>>> "Moderate" <sparky@ engineer .com> wrote in message
No, you can only rationally compare the US to those European countries
that have a similar standard of living. I understand that you now
concede that "socialist" Sweden has better health care and living
standards than the US, and so shouldn't be used, but to try to bring
Serbia into this equation just to try to deflect. As usual.
As for your "picking up the garbage" argument, it is just that. Garbage.
the glaring truth of the life expectancy data is simply dishonest.
John B.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Destroy the Dems in an election. Just like that, huh? What a brilliant
political strategist you are. Why don't you call the RNC right now and
tell them your idea?
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 29, 8:06=A0pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:31:24 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>> >> Again, they need more than a majority. They need 2/3 of both houses,
>> >> which they'll never get.
>>
>> >All they need to do is send a bill to the Obama and have him veto the
>> >bill. Then it is Obama who has shutdown the government.
>>
>> Exactly. =A0John seems confused on this issue. =A0
>
>Sorry, Jack. I'm not confused in the least. Neither you nor Bert
>understands the process.
It's amazing the extent that some people will go to so as not to admit
they're wrong.
Fact is, a simple Republican majority in the House is enough to stop
funding for Obamacare. There's nothing that Obama could do about it
other than shut down the government but he can never force Congress to
fund the health care bill.
All that rubbish you wrote about 2/3 majority is totally irrelevant.
Jack Hollis
<fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
>That fact that you go back to the life expectancy things shows the
>poor quality of your rhetoric. At least compare apples to apples.
>Compare the US to all of Europe, for example, a more reasonable
>comparison, if you are going to look at a stat like that. In any
>event, I have never seen any data that show health care affects life
>expectancy as much as say picking up the garbage...and picking up the
>garbage has a big effect on life expectancy.
Actually the life expectancy issue, which has very little to do with
the quality of health care, is all they have. When you look at actual
outcomes provided by the various health care systems, you see that the
US has the best health care in the world.
If you're a male and you get cancer in England, you have over a 21%
higher likelihood to die. That's more than one in five male cancer
patients. How could anyone want to emulate such a health care system.
Bottom line, the US has the best health care in the world.
CANCER SURVIVAL RATES (5 years) - The Lancet
WOMEN (% all cancers)
USA - 62.9
Iceland - 61.8
Sweden - 61.7
Belgium - 61.6
Finland - 61.1
Switzerland - 61.1
Italy - 59.7
Spain - 59
Germany - 58.8
Norway - 58.4
Holland - 58.3
Austria - 58
Malta - 54.6
Wales - 54.1
Slovenia - 52.9
England - 52.7
Ireland - 51.9
N. Ireland - 51
Czech Republic - 49.3
Poland - 48.3
Scotland - 48.0
MEN (% all cancers)
USA - 66.3
Sweden - 60.3
Iceland - 57.7
Finland -55.9
Austria - 55.4
Switzerland - 54.6
Belgium - 53.2
Norway - 53
Germany - 50
Italy - 49.8
Spain - 49.5
Ireland - 48.1
Wales - 47.9
Netherlands - 47.1
England - 44.8
Malta - 42.3
N. Ireland - 42
Scotland - 40.2
Poland - 38.8
Czech Republic - 37.7
Slovenia - 36.6
Bradley K. Sherman
This is much more a reflection of early detection
than of quality of life. The War on Cancer has
been a monumental failure:
|
| We Fought Cancer...And Cancer Won.
|
| After billions spent on research and decades of hit-or-miss
| treatments, it's time to rethink the war on cancer.
|
<http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548>
or:
<http://www.amazon.com/War-Cancer-Anatomy-Failure-Blueprint/dp/1402086202/>
--bks
Moderate
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3389201d-0f1c-4938...@10g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
Congress is constitutionally required to pass 13 appropriations bills
every year. With a democratic congress and a democratic president, the
budget congress starts out with mirrors the one the president sent to
it. During the appropriations process, Republicans can offer
amendments to zero out this or that program, but they will fail. If
the appropriations bill for HHS goes to the White House without the
funding the president wants for the new health care law, he'll veto it
and congress will not have the votes to override. Even when Congress
and the White House are controlled by different parties, legislative
efforts to zero out federal programs almost always fail. I can't
remember the last time it happened.
*************************************************************
You are suggesting that Obama would shut down the government.
That would be one of the Obama policies that I agree with.
Moderate
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message news:aJgsn.95$iL1...@newsfe24.iad...
According to the police investigation of the bullet that when through Eric
Cantor's window the bullet was randomly shot into the air and landed in his
window. The bullet was found a foot from the window and the bullet did not
even penetrate the blinds.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <c63565a2-97ab-4c6f-9751-83b072cc8...@u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
This just shows the shallowness of your thinking. If trash were left
to rot in the streets, as it once was, disease rates would skyrocket.
To take an area like Europe, and compare the richer parts only to an
area as heterogeneous as the US is invalid on it's face. Compare
Bulgaria then, to Ohio and let's see what we get...or compare all of
Europe to all of the US.
The living standard in the US is far far superior to that of Sweden.
If Sweden is so great, why aren't you there?
Dinosaur_Sr
Why not? Send them an email. The strategy worked pretty well in the
1980's...we are the govt and we are here to help you!
William Clark
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Dinosaur_Sr
> <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
>
> >That fact that you go back to the life expectancy things shows the
> >poor quality of your rhetoric. At least compare apples to apples.
> >Compare the US to all of Europe, for example, a more reasonable
> >comparison, if you are going to look at a stat like that. In any
> >event, I have never seen any data that show health care affects life
> >expectancy as much as say picking up the garbage...and picking up the
> >garbage has a big effect on life expectancy.
>
>
> Actually the life expectancy issue, which has very little to do with
> the quality of health care, is all they have. When you look at actual
> outcomes provided by the various health care systems, you see that the
> US has the best health care in the world.
More BS to try to smother the basic truth. Cherry picking individual
diseases like cancer, which is not even the leading cause of death, is a
crock - the bottom line is how long you expect to live, because it is a
holistic measure of the entire health care system. In addition, survival
rates for a disease is also a nonsense, since it is unrelated to the
likelihood of catching the disease in the first place. For example,
prostate cancer rates in the UK are about 20% lower than in the US to
begin with, so you can consider an extra 30,000 Brits a year to be
"surviving" a disease they never got in the first place, making the
statistics irrelevant.
But I understand how you political bias needs all this to be true.
William Clark
<f62bb96f-8408-45c9...@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
Nonsense, again. You really don;t think the UK has areas that compare to
the US's urban slums, or to poor rural districts? Then you live in a
fantasy world. Your attempts to dilute the facts, and deflect the truth
are simply pathetic.
>
> The living standard in the US is far far superior to that of Sweden.
> If Sweden is so great, why aren't you there?
So then it IS OK to use Sweden for a comparison? Good to know, because
they clean the US's clock on health care statistics.
PS: It appears that your premise is wrong, to begin with:
John B.
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
Actually, it's not. Let me break it down for you, Jack:
A: Yes, a GOP majority Congress could send Obama an HHS approps. bill
with no funding for what you call Obamacare. But there is no GOP
majority and there isn't going to be one.
B: If there were a GOP majority and it did try to defund any and all
aspects of the new law, the bill would be vetoed. That veto would shut
down HHS and the other agencies funded in the HHS approps. bill,
incuding the Depts. of Labor and Education, not the entire govt. You
have approps. bills confused with continuing resolutions.
C: Congressional Republicans could, as you suggest, sit on their asses
and blame Obama, but then they'd have to explain to the American
people why they've refused to fund a law that they themselves passed
and why they've shut down three federal agencies and put hundreds of
thousands of people out of work. They'll also have to explain to
people who stand to benefit from the new law why those benefits will
not be forthcoming. I don't think they're that crazy, but maybe
they'll surprise me.
D: It may interest you to know that the scenario you envision almost
never happens. Amendments to zero out federal programs get introduced
all the time and they seldom make it past the subcommittee level,
regardless of which party controls the House and which controls the
White House. So, this is nothing more than an academic discussion.
John B.
> <assimil...@borg.org> wrote in messagenews:aJgsn.95$iL1...@newsfe24.iad...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh. Well. That makes it OK then.
Moderate
"William Clark" <cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:clark-549234....@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
As usual you contradicted your own argument. Thanks for pointing out that
lifestyle is more of a factor in life expectancy than health care.
Moderate
*********************************************************
It certainly means that the shooter was not aiming at Cantor's office as has
been reported.
Dinosaur_Sr
state.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <f62bb96f-8408-45c9-8193-b27e9cd9b...@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Interesting how your own references defeat your rhetoric. The Swedish
article you referenced talks of Africa, and the leading issues
limiting life being water and sanitation.
In any event, the UK is a tiny country. The US is a large country.
When the English were as powerful as the US is today, they had even
worse slums, far far worse.
My point, which you cannot comprehend, is that a small rich country
like Sweden is not comparable to the US, which is a very large and
much richer country. All of Europe would be appropriate. If you want
to choose one of the richer parts of Europe, then compare it to one of
the richer parts of the US. But you don't get that, and I understand.
I teach in a college, and not everyone can grasp such things.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You can prove that?
William Clark
"Moderate" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote:
Perhaps you can explain how you reached this stunning conclusion?
William Clark
<dccef7c7-0161-4c01...@e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jack's "Columbia PhD" seems to be creaking a bit under the demands of
this topic. I wonder why?
MNMikeW
"Dinosaur_Sr" <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:1790206b-7428-4097...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
You can prove that?
Later Thursday, however, Richmond police said in a news release that the
bullet had been fired into the air around 1 a.m. Tuesday. It finished its
arc back to earth at a sharp downward trajectory, breaking a window pane on
the bottom floor of the two-story brick building where Cantor's campaign
leases the top floor.
The spent bullet hit the floor about one foot inside the shattered pane. No
one was in the building at the time. A police investigation has yielded no
suspects.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/bullet-struck-cantors-office-appears-randomly-fired/
Moderate
"Dinosaur_Sr" <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message
news:1790206b-7428-4097...@x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
You can prove that?
*********************************************************
Do you know anything about firearms? You can't make a hook shot with a
firearm the same way you can with a basketball. How much proof do you need?
I see Mike posted a link to the report.
Jack Hollis
Sherman) wrote:
>In article <nu74r5l8g1bf87c4u...@4ax.com>,
>Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>CANCER SURVIVAL RATES (5 years) - The Lancet
>>
>
>This is much more a reflection of early detection
>than of quality of life. The War on Cancer has
>been a monumental failure:
The survival rates for most cancers have been steadily increasing over
the years. So you can't say that it's been a total failure. However,
a real cure for cancer is not even close.
Jack Hollis
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A: Yes, a GOP majority Congress could send Obama an HHS approps. bill
>with no funding for what you call Obamacare. But there is no GOP
>majority and there isn't going to be one.
Thank you John for finally admitting my point that if there were a
Republican majority they could cut off funding for Obamacare. That's
all I was saying.
I also agree that it's unlikely that they will get such a majority.
However, considering what happened in Massachusetts, you never know.
William Clark
<317832e2-84e1-41d1...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Dinosaur_Sr <fros...@dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote:
But the Swedes still have a higher standard of living than the US, as do
seven other countries. However since the UK is not one of those eight,
it should, by your "logic" have a lower life expectancy than the US.
Oops.
>
> In any event, the UK is a tiny country. The US is a large country.
> When the English were as powerful as the US is today, they had even
> worse slums, far far worse.
But you then admit you know nothing of the UK today. I thought not. And
60 million people does not define a "small" country - it is certainly
big enough to have every societal complexion of the US.
>
> My point, which you cannot comprehend, is that a small rich country
> like Sweden is not comparable to the US, which is a very large and
> much richer country. All of Europe would be appropriate. If you want
> to choose one of the richer parts of Europe, then compare it to one of
> the richer parts of the US. But you don't get that, and I understand.
> I teach in a college, and not everyone can grasp such things.
BS, again. It is not necessary to round up 300 million people in order
to draw a parallel with the US. All you need are a statistically valid
distribution of societal characteristics to compare with those of the
US, which almost every European country has. I'm sorry this is beyond
you - actually it probably isn't, but you are so desperately grasping at
straws that you have to deny it. Life expectancy is the bottom line of
any "health care" system.
Bradley K. Sherman
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:16:01 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
>
>>Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>CANCER SURVIVAL RATES (5 years) - The Lancet
>>
>>This is much more a reflection of early detection
>>than of quality of life. The War on Cancer has
>>been a monumental failure:
>
>The survival rates for most cancers have been steadily increasing over
>the years. So you can't say that it's been a total failure. However,
>a real cure for cancer is not even close.
Sometimes the "cure" is worse than the disease:
|
| March 10, 2010
| Op-Ed Contributor
| The Great Prostate Mistake
| By RICHARD J. ABLIN
|
| Tucson
|
| EACH year some 30 million American men undergo testing for
| prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate.
| Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the
| P.S.A. test is the most commonly used tool for detecting
| prostate cancer.
|
| The test's popularity has led to a hugely expensive public
| health disaster. It's an issue I am painfully familiar with
| -- I discovered P.S.A. in 1970. As Congress searches for
| ways to cut costs in our health care system, a significant
| savings could come from changing the way the antigen is
| used to screen for prostate cancer.
|
| Americans spend an enormous amount testing for prostate
| cancer. The annual bill for P.S.A. screening is at least $3
| billion, with much of it paid for by Medicare and the
| Veterans Administration.
| ...
| Numerous early screening proponents, including Thomas
| Stamey, a well-known Stanford University urologist, have
| come out against routine testing; last month, the American
| Cancer Society urged more caution in using the test. The
| American College of Preventive Medicine also concluded that
| there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine
| screening.
|
| So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue
| peddling the tests and advocacy groups push "prostate
| cancer awareness" by encouraging men to get screened.
| Shamefully, the American Urological Association still
| recommends screening, while the National Cancer Institute
| is vague on the issue, stating that the evidence is unclear.
| ...
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10Ablin.html>
--bks
John B.
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:15:56 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
> >A: Yes, a GOP majority Congress could send Obama an HHS approps. bill
> >with no funding for what you call Obamacare. But there is no GOP
> >majority and there isn't going to be one.
>
> Thank you John for finally admitting my point that if there were a
> Republican majority they could cut off funding for Obamacare. That's
> all I was saying.
Actually, Jack, I think you were saying a lot more than that.
Carbon
> On 29-Mar-2010, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> There is no teaching needed. A lie is a lie. A failure to perform is
>>> a failure to perform.
>>
>> both Democratic and Republican administrations tried to push reform
>> through and all have failed. Until now. As much as I hate to break it
>> to all you denialist true believers, this success is not going to be
>> lost on the voters.
>
> a sh*t sandwich is still turdolicious, even if is wrapped in a Reform
> label.
I look forward to the excuses in November.