Export thread
YOU LIE!
#1
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
#2
Dave
Dave
Decorum is no more. But at least the Republicans are also speaking out against this guy.
#3
The Lovely Boehner
The Lovely Boehner
Joe Wilson is like school in the summertime.
#4
Jake
Jake
For a second, Obama looked like he would have punched the guy in the face if he was standing in front of him. There was nothing you could construe as "taken aback", it was all "are you fucking serious, douchebag?".
#5
Covar
Covar
that might have been entertaining...
#6
Iaculus
Iaculus
Ye gods, I can smell the impending meme...
#7
Fun Size
Fun Size
God, you're not kidding. There's like a second where you can see him pondering the possibility - Is Obama gonna have to choke a bitch?
#9
GasBandit
GasBandit
Good Ol' South Carolina. He probably guaranteed his continued incumbency.
#10
Jake
Jake
I like that after several like "Joe Wilson shit in your kitchen", I got "Joe Wilson is an elected official who seems to be using party-line rhetoric as a tool rather than thoughtful debate and is actually hindering real progress in society which is a shame as we're a smart country and should expect more of the people we elect"
#11
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
If I had read this at home, I'd be working on an Obama version of "NO U" as we speak....
#12
Rob King
[/QUOTE]
I haven't gotten that one! Most of them make me giggle a bit, though.
Rob King
I like that after several like "Joe Wilson shit in your kitchen", I got "Joe Wilson is an elected official who seems to be using party-line rhetoric as a tool rather than thoughtful debate and is actually hindering real progress in society which is a shame as we're a smart country and should expect more of the people we elect"
[/QUOTE]
I haven't gotten that one! Most of them make me giggle a bit, though.
#13
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I wonder how many committees he will be sitting on?
I can't wait to hear what Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck have to say about this douche. They will likely make him a martyr for their cause of no civility in politics.
I can't wait to hear what Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck have to say about this douche. They will likely make him a martyr for their cause of no civility in politics.
#14
GasBandit
GasBandit
Heh, have you ever watched a session of parliament when the PM was giving a speech? Those guys know how to really tear up a room.I wonder how many committees he will be sitting on?
I can't wait to hear what Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck have to say about this douche. They will likely make him a martyr for their cause of no civility in politics.
#15
sixpackshaker
I like to think Americans have more class than the British.
Even then, the Harrumph and interrupt, boo and wail. There is not much of calling the PM a bloody liar.
Remember, The Prez is our Head of State. Their Head of State is the Queen. I doubt anyone would call Liz a liar at a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament.
sixpackshaker
Heh, have you ever watched a session of parliament when the PM was giving a speech? Those guys know how to really tear up a room.[/QUOTE]I wonder how many committees he will be sitting on?
I can't wait to hear what Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck have to say about this douche. They will likely make him a martyr for their cause of no civility in politics.
I like to think Americans have more class than the British.
Even then, the Harrumph and interrupt, boo and wail. There is not much of calling the PM a bloody liar.
Remember, The Prez is our Head of State. Their Head of State is the Queen. I doubt anyone would call Liz a liar at a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament.
#16
Kitty Sinatra
Even then, the Harrumph and interrupt, boo and wail. There is not much of calling the PM a bloody liar.
Remember, The Prez is our Head of State. Their Head of State is the Queen. I doubt anyone would call Liz a liar at a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament.[/QUOTE]
It's specifically against protocol to call any member, not just the Prime Minister, a liar or to outright insult them. So to avoid being reprimanded, MPs have to find creative ways of shouting down the opposition. That's what makes Parliament funky.
Kitty Sinatra
I like to think Americans have more class than the British.Heh, have you ever watched a session of parliament when the PM was giving a speech? Those guys know how to really tear up a room.
Even then, the Harrumph and interrupt, boo and wail. There is not much of calling the PM a bloody liar.
Remember, The Prez is our Head of State. Their Head of State is the Queen. I doubt anyone would call Liz a liar at a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament.[/QUOTE]
It's specifically against protocol to call any member, not just the Prime Minister, a liar or to outright insult them. So to avoid being reprimanded, MPs have to find creative ways of shouting down the opposition. That's what makes Parliament funky.
#17
Jake
Jake
I like that his opponent's election campaign has pulled in over 70 grand since the incident.
#19
sixpackshaker
[/QUOTE]
Now, that is a Clinton Administration that I can get behind...
sixpackshaker
Begs to differ:That's what makes Parliament funky.
Now, that is a Clinton Administration that I can get behind...
#20
ThatNickGuy
So true. As Robin Williams once said, "Parliament is like a senate meeting, but with a two-drink minimum."
When I heard about this outcry, I immediately thought, "Parliament?!"
ThatNickGuy
Heh, have you ever watched a session of parliament when the PM was giving a speech? Those guys know how to really tear up a room.[/QUOTE]I wonder how many committees he will be sitting on?
I can't wait to hear what Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck have to say about this douche. They will likely make him a martyr for their cause of no civility in politics.
So true. As Robin Williams once said, "Parliament is like a senate meeting, but with a two-drink minimum."
When I heard about this outcry, I immediately thought, "Parliament?!"
#21
Espy
Espy
Guy's a douche. A rude, annoying douche.
But still... I find it odd how short our memories are in America. Hearing people (not necessarily here mind you) whine about how mean and rude this evil republican is, etc, etc is hilarious and how it's just the first time something so horrendous has ever happened in the always polite American political machine OMG!!!!11
Does no one remember Bush getting boo'd and heckled during his State of the Union in 2005? THAT was embarrassing. Just as embarrassing as this if not more so since it was a hell of a lot more folks doing it than this one lone kook.
But still... I find it odd how short our memories are in America. Hearing people (not necessarily here mind you) whine about how mean and rude this evil republican is, etc, etc is hilarious and how it's just the first time something so horrendous has ever happened in the always polite American political machine OMG!!!!11
Does no one remember Bush getting boo'd and heckled during his State of the Union in 2005? THAT was embarrassing. Just as embarrassing as this if not more so since it was a hell of a lot more folks doing it than this one lone kook.
#22
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
There has always been a certain level of grumbling when a President addresses certain topics that the opposition party dislikes. But to call out actual fighting words is quite different.
#23
Espy
Espy
Oh and I should add, it's only that sort of thing that's making me laugh, getting upset at this guy is right on, I wish more people would express their displeasure with their representatives and let them know they won't be vote for them just cause of the (r) or (d) after their name. We should expect more of our representatives.
#24
GasBandit
I like to think Americans have more class than the British.
Even then, the Harrumph and interrupt, boo and wail. There is not much of calling the PM a bloody liar.
Remember, The Prez is our Head of State. Their Head of State is the Queen. I doubt anyone would call Liz a liar at a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament.[/QUOTE]
The queen is their figurehead. The president is not a monarch.
---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------
It's also interesting to note that, despite Obama's assertions to the contrary, there is no language in the house bill excluding illegal aliens, and democrats refused on two separate occasions to allow an amendment stipulating that persons in the country illegally would not be covered.
GasBandit
Heh, have you ever watched a session of parliament when the PM was giving a speech? Those guys know how to really tear up a room.[/quote]I wonder how many committees he will be sitting on?
I can't wait to hear what Rush, O'Reilly, and Beck have to say about this douche. They will likely make him a martyr for their cause of no civility in politics.
I like to think Americans have more class than the British.
Even then, the Harrumph and interrupt, boo and wail. There is not much of calling the PM a bloody liar.
Remember, The Prez is our Head of State. Their Head of State is the Queen. I doubt anyone would call Liz a liar at a joint meeting of the Houses of Parliament.[/QUOTE]
The queen is their figurehead. The president is not a monarch.
---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------
It's also interesting to note that, despite Obama's assertions to the contrary, there is no language in the house bill excluding illegal aliens, and democrats refused on two separate occasions to allow an amendment stipulating that persons in the country illegally would not be covered.
#25
Rob King
Rob King
I remember hearing a story about our provincial House of Assembly. A Liberal representative was making some sort of speech, or point, and a Progressive Conservative party member's voice went so hoarse from shouting catcalls, that he ended up just throwing ice cubes for the rest of the speech.
What a classy guy.
But these guys are the spiritual successors to the house of parliament set up in colonial Newfoundland who met in a pub for several years. They just kept forgetting to introduce a motion to build a capitol building.
What a classy guy.
But these guys are the spiritual successors to the house of parliament set up in colonial Newfoundland who met in a pub for several years. They just kept forgetting to introduce a motion to build a capitol building.
#26
Tinwhistler
Factcheck.org says otherwise.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
Tinwhistler
Is this true? Can you point me to a language of the house bill you're referring to?It's also interesting to note that, despite Obama's assertions to the contrary, there is no language in the house bill excluding illegal aliens, and democrats refused on two separate occasions to allow an amendment stipulating that persons in the country illegally would not be covered.
Factcheck.org says otherwise.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
#27
Rob King
Rob King
But they are both heads of state, no matter what their title technically is.The queen is their figurehead. The president is not a monarch.
#28
Covar
Gas is referring to their Job responsibilities/abilities.
Covar
But they are both heads of state, no matter what their title technically is.[/QUOTE]The queen is their figurehead. The president is not a monarch.
Gas is referring to their Job responsibilities/abilities.
#29
Espy
Factcheck.org says otherwise.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
I could be wrong, but I think that the issue wasn't that Obama is WRONG (he's technically correct, no illegal aliens will be covered officially) but the bill had nothing to CHECK for the status of people. So a illegal could get it since no one was asking if he/she was illegal or not.
At least that was what I remember it being about.
To be honest, it's all gonna cost so much why the hell not cover illegals. What's a another few trillion we don't have anyway?
Espy
Is this true? Can you point me to a language of the house bill you're referring to?It's also interesting to note that, despite Obama's assertions to the contrary, there is no language in the house bill excluding illegal aliens, and democrats refused on two separate occasions to allow an amendment stipulating that persons in the country illegally would not be covered.
Factcheck.org says otherwise.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
[/QUOTE]Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
I could be wrong, but I think that the issue wasn't that Obama is WRONG (he's technically correct, no illegal aliens will be covered officially) but the bill had nothing to CHECK for the status of people. So a illegal could get it since no one was asking if he/she was illegal or not.
At least that was what I remember it being about.
To be honest, it's all gonna cost so much why the hell not cover illegals. What's a another few trillion we don't have anyway?
#30
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
Seriously, Joe's face needs to be shopped on Phoenix Wright's body....
#31
Rob King
Gas is referring to their Job responsibilities/abilities.[/QUOTE]
Right, but I thought the issue at hand was the appropriate level of respect, more than their power or responsibility.
Rob King
But they are both heads of state, no matter what their title technically is.[/QUOTE]The queen is their figurehead. The president is not a monarch.
Gas is referring to their Job responsibilities/abilities.[/QUOTE]
Right, but I thought the issue at hand was the appropriate level of respect, more than their power or responsibility.
#32
GasBandit
---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------
Gas is referring to their Job responsibilities/abilities.[/quote]
Right, but I thought the issue at hand was the appropriate level of respect, more than their power or responsibility.[/quote]
The difference in "level of respect" is part of why the US doesn't have a monarchy. A president doesn't command the same level of deference as a king (or isn't supposed to), can be legally ousted from office either by vote or by impeachment, and can't issue edicts that instantly become law (though some "executive orders" over the last 10 or 20 years have blurred the line).
Should Joe Wilson have shouted "YOU LIE!" during the president's speech? No, clearly not. But do we have to treat Obama (Or Dubya, or Clinton, or...) the same way we would a king or queen? No, clearly not. England's prime minister is a closer analogue.
GasBandit
Yeah, that's how I should have phrased it, sorry. The bill makes no provision for checking on whether somebody is illegal or not. And I can't "link" to language that isn't there.I could be wrong, but I think that the issue wasn't that Obama is WRONG (he's technically correct, no illegal aliens will be covered officially) but the bill had nothing to CHECK for the status of people. So a illegal could get it since no one was asking if he/she was illegal or not.
---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------
But they are both heads of state, no matter what their title technically is.[/quote]The queen is their figurehead. The president is not a monarch.
Gas is referring to their Job responsibilities/abilities.[/quote]
Right, but I thought the issue at hand was the appropriate level of respect, more than their power or responsibility.[/quote]
The difference in "level of respect" is part of why the US doesn't have a monarchy. A president doesn't command the same level of deference as a king (or isn't supposed to), can be legally ousted from office either by vote or by impeachment, and can't issue edicts that instantly become law (though some "executive orders" over the last 10 or 20 years have blurred the line).
Should Joe Wilson have shouted "YOU LIE!" during the president's speech? No, clearly not. But do we have to treat Obama (Or Dubya, or Clinton, or...) the same way we would a king or queen? No, clearly not. England's prime minister is a closer analogue.
#33
Tinwhistler
Factcheck.org says otherwise.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
I could be wrong, but I think that the issue wasn't that Obama is WRONG (he's technically correct, no illegal aliens will be covered officially) but the bill had nothing to CHECK for the status of people. So a illegal could get it since no one was asking if he/she was illegal or not.
At least that was what I remember it being about.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, that makes sense. A cursory web search turns up discussions about an amendment being defeated that wanted to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to identify and exclude illegal aliens.
So, the law excludes illegal aliens, but contains no enforcement or detection provisions, which pretty much guarantees (in my mind at least) that at least some, if not many, illegal aliens will illegally make use of those benefits.
Tinwhistler
Is this true? Can you point me to a language of the house bill you're referring to?It's also interesting to note that, despite Obama's assertions to the contrary, there is no language in the house bill excluding illegal aliens, and democrats refused on two separate occasions to allow an amendment stipulating that persons in the country illegally would not be covered.
Factcheck.org says otherwise.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
[/quote]Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
I could be wrong, but I think that the issue wasn't that Obama is WRONG (he's technically correct, no illegal aliens will be covered officially) but the bill had nothing to CHECK for the status of people. So a illegal could get it since no one was asking if he/she was illegal or not.
At least that was what I remember it being about.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, that makes sense. A cursory web search turns up discussions about an amendment being defeated that wanted to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to identify and exclude illegal aliens.
So, the law excludes illegal aliens, but contains no enforcement or detection provisions, which pretty much guarantees (in my mind at least) that at least some, if not many, illegal aliens will illegally make use of those benefits.
#34
Kitty Sinatra
There is likely nothing about the Health Card in all our major health care Legislation. Certainly not in our Federal legislation, since it's more of a high concept bill and doesn't deal with the nitty gritty details of delivery of service
I'm sure your system will include something similar before it's done, but that's a detail. And if y'all are smart about introducing an effective universal(ish) health care system, the details will be left for each state to deal with as they see fit.
Kitty Sinatra
Up here in Ontariostan, the government issues a "Health Card" to each resident of the province. It's a little driver's licence sized card that we present when we see a doctor or go to the hospital. Illegal residents probably can't get one of these cards (or aren't supposed to anyway)I could be wrong, but I think that the issue wasn't that Obama is WRONG (he's technically correct, no illegal aliens will be covered officially) but the bill had nothing to CHECK for the status of people. So a illegal could get it since no one was asking if he/she was illegal or not.
At least that was what I remember it being about.
To be honest, it's all gonna cost so much why the hell not cover illegals. What's a another few trillion we don't have anyway?
There is likely nothing about the Health Card in all our major health care Legislation. Certainly not in our Federal legislation, since it's more of a high concept bill and doesn't deal with the nitty gritty details of delivery of service
I'm sure your system will include something similar before it's done, but that's a detail. And if y'all are smart about introducing an effective universal(ish) health care system, the details will be left for each state to deal with as they see fit.
#35
GasBandit
GasBandit
We've gotten into some very bad spots by being "sure" something would be included in the final product and singing off on it site unseen.I'm sure your system will include something similar before it's done, but that's a detail.
That's also a very dangerous assumption to make about American Government.And if y'all are smart about introducing an effective universal(ish) health care system, the details will be left for each state to deal with as they see fit.
#36
Covar
Covar
Power left to the states? I don't understand.
#37
DarkAudit
At least it did before SCOTUS told CEO Don Blankenship he couldn't buy himself judges anymore. He still has Gov. Manchin firmly in pocket, though.
DarkAudit
In West Virginia, that means everything is run by Massey Energy.Power left to the states? I don't understand.
At least it did before SCOTUS told CEO Don Blankenship he couldn't buy himself judges anymore. He still has Gov. Manchin firmly in pocket, though.
#38
Rob King
Although, I would waive my opinion in a case that the president isn't acting presidential, or if the queen wasn't acting ... queen-y? Rectification of names, and all that.
Rob King
I see. I guess what I was getting at, was that as the very head of the government, they both command more respect than anything below them. Or at least, in theory. I don't care that much about the monarchy, other than as a curiosity, and the Queen is my head of state. But to disrespect the head of the structure, would be to insult everything below it, as well. As far as I'm concerned, at least.The difference in \"level of respect\" is part of why the US doesn't have a monarchy. A president doesn't command the same level of deference as a king (or isn't supposed to), can be legally ousted from office either by vote or by impeachment, and can't issue edicts that instantly become law (though some \"executive orders\" over the last 10 or 20 years have blurred the line).
Should Joe Wilson have shouted \"YOU LIE!\" during the president's speech? No, clearly not. But do we have to treat Obama (Or Dubya, or Clinton, or...) the same way we would a king or queen? No, clearly not. England's prime minister is a closer analogue.
Although, I would waive my opinion in a case that the president isn't acting presidential, or if the queen wasn't acting ... queen-y? Rectification of names, and all that.
#39
GasBandit
The whole point was that they were not supposed to be "above" anyone, thus impeding the resurgence of tyranny. Got an overabundance of that in recent times as well, particularly at the federal level. It's like everybody inside the DC beltway has agreed to pretend the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
GasBandit
This is not so. It is the very heart of the matter of why we came to have an elected president instead of one of the other forms of executive authority much more common in western civilzation in the 18th century. The office of the presidency is not to rule but merely to serve to govern. Its power is checked and ultimately fleeting. Everything about the way the government was set up was to try to prevent those elected to positions from getting "above" the governed. We just threw off the yoke of one so "high," we decided we didn't need another one. Living memory has sort of gotten away from that, unfortunately, and a number of people have started wearing their titles of office like they were titles of nobility anyway.I see. I guess what I was getting at, was that as the very head of the government, they both command more respect than anything below them. Or at least, in theory.
The whole point was that they were not supposed to be "above" anyone, thus impeding the resurgence of tyranny. Got an overabundance of that in recent times as well, particularly at the federal level. It's like everybody inside the DC beltway has agreed to pretend the 10th amendment doesn't exist.
#40
Covar
Covar
^ This.
Also as far as heads of government go, Senators and Congressmen exist at the same level as the President. To claim one should be subordinate to the other goes against the entire point of the Constitution. Three equal branches of government, each with balanced amounts of power.
Also as far as heads of government go, Senators and Congressmen exist at the same level as the President. To claim one should be subordinate to the other goes against the entire point of the Constitution. Three equal branches of government, each with balanced amounts of power.
#41
Rob King
Rob King
I see your point, but even with the checks and balances, and even if he doesn't wield 'too much' power, isn't it the office of the president that the rest of the government is based around? Not the man, mind you, but the office.
I mean, it is still the president's signature that makes a bill law, am I right? Even if he doesn't wield power that elevates him so high above everything else, I would still see that as an elevated position.
Or maybe not elevated but ... integral? At the center of things, maybe? I'm having trouble pulling words out of my vocabulary these days.
Although, I guess I understand a little bit better why it's less horrible to insult the president than the queen, but I'm having trouble divorcing the idea of an insult on the executive branch from the idea of an insult on the whole system.
I mean, it is still the president's signature that makes a bill law, am I right? Even if he doesn't wield power that elevates him so high above everything else, I would still see that as an elevated position.
Or maybe not elevated but ... integral? At the center of things, maybe? I'm having trouble pulling words out of my vocabulary these days.
Although, I guess I understand a little bit better why it's less horrible to insult the president than the queen, but I'm having trouble divorcing the idea of an insult on the executive branch from the idea of an insult on the whole system.
#42
GasBandit
It's not the president's power that enables him to sign a bill into law, it's the american people's desire to limit the power of congress such that somebody else, designated the president, MUST sign off on their idiocy before it becomes law, or they can go pound sand.
"I have accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I give you this warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.
GasBandit
I think I've found the reason you're having a hard time with it - you think it's bad to insult the whole system. The proper viewpoint for americans to have of their government is to hold elected officials in about the same esteem as they would their local garbageman, only trust him even less for the influence he wields.I see your point, but even with the checks and balances, and even if he doesn't wield 'too much' power, isn't it the office of the president that the rest of the government is based around? Not the man, mind you, but the office.
I mean, it is still the president's signature that makes a bill law, am I right? Even if he doesn't wield power that elevates him so high above everything else, I would still see that as an elevated position.
Or maybe not elevated but ... integral? At the center of things, maybe? I'm having trouble pulling words out of my vocabulary these days.
Although, I guess I understand a little bit better why it's less horrible to insult the president than the queen, but I'm having trouble divorcing the idea of an insult on the executive branch from the idea of an insult on the whole system.
It's not the president's power that enables him to sign a bill into law, it's the american people's desire to limit the power of congress such that somebody else, designated the president, MUST sign off on their idiocy before it becomes law, or they can go pound sand.
"I have accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I give you this warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.
#43
Espy
Espy
Apparently immediately after Wilson called Rahm Emmanuel to apologize and said it was a heat of the moment thing.
From the Miami Herald: "He apologized quickly and without equivocation, and I appreciate that," Obama said.
Thank God he did that at the very least.
From the Miami Herald: "He apologized quickly and without equivocation, and I appreciate that," Obama said.
Thank God he did that at the very least.
#44
Krisken
Krisken
Agreed. I'd be awful disappointed if one of my senators had been that rude. Good on him to at least call.Apparently immediately after Wilson called Rahm Emmanuel to apologize and said it was a heat of the moment thing.
From the Miami Herald: "He apologized quickly and without equivocation, and I appreciate that," Obama said.
Thank God he did that at the very least.
#45
Jake
Jake
He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
#46
GasBandit
GasBandit
Not as much difference as there was supposed to be.He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
#47
Krisken
Krisken
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
#48
Covar
Him not them. You can only have one representative.
Covar
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/QUOTE]He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
Him not them. You can only have one representative.
#49
Iaculus
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
And why is that a reason not to be disappointed in all of them?
Where'd your libertarian spirit go, man?
Iaculus
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/QUOTE]He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
And why is that a reason not to be disappointed in all of them?
Where'd your libertarian spirit go, man?
#50
Rob King
But to be clear: I have problems with insulting the system, yes. But the people sitting in the offices are fair game if and when they do a piss-poor job. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that this joker must have seen this speech as Obama doing a piss-poor job.
Rob King
Ooh, that clears things up then.I think I've found the reason you're having a hard time with it - you think it's bad to insult the whole system. The proper viewpoint for americans to have of their government is to hold elected officials in about the same esteem as they would their local garbageman, only trust him even less for the influence he wields.
It's not the president's power that enables him to sign a bill into law, it's the american people's desire to limit the power of congress such that somebody else, designated the president, MUST sign off on their idiocy before it becomes law, or they can go pound sand.
"I have accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I give you this warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate." - John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.
But to be clear: I have problems with insulting the system, yes. But the people sitting in the offices are fair game if and when they do a piss-poor job. And the more I think about it, the more I realize that this joker must have seen this speech as Obama doing a piss-poor job.
#51
Krisken
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you are nitpicky today!
Krisken
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/quote]He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you are nitpicky today!
#52
Covar
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you are nitpicky today![/QUOTE]
Yea, sorry about that. My work today involved sitting around waiting on things to happen and people to do stuff. Hopefully I'll be busy tomorrow.
Covar
My mistake. I'd be disappointed in them too.[/quote]He's a Representative, not a Senator. Pretty big difference.
Him not them. You can only have one representative.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you are nitpicky today![/QUOTE]
Yea, sorry about that. My work today involved sitting around waiting on things to happen and people to do stuff. Hopefully I'll be busy tomorrow.
#53
twitchmoss
twitchmoss
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0[/ame]
and the keyboard cat version
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG31ZRLHywY[/ame]
*thats* how we do things here
and the keyboard cat version
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG31ZRLHywY[/ame]
*thats* how we do things here
#54
GasBandit
GasBandit
Yeah. Heh... when I heard the talking heads saying how much of a crime against parliamentary procedure, I was thinking, "Have any of these jokers WATCHED a session of parliament?!"
#55
Rob King
Seriously. To sit in the gallery is quite entertaining. On the occasional lazy afternoon I've been known to turn on CPAC (feed from House of Assembly) for entertainment.
---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------
Another fun story, copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Peter MacKay is our Minister of National Defense, and Belinda Stronach was another MP. They were dating, but at some point they broke things off, and eventually Stronach crossed the floor to become a Liberal MP.
Rob King
And that's how it should be done.*thats* how we do things here
Seriously. To sit in the gallery is quite entertaining. On the occasional lazy afternoon I've been known to turn on CPAC (feed from House of Assembly) for entertainment.
---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------
Another fun story, copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Peter MacKay is our Minister of National Defense, and Belinda Stronach was another MP. They were dating, but at some point they broke things off, and eventually Stronach crossed the floor to become a Liberal MP.
... there was a debate on the Conservative Party's clean air plan taking place when MP Mark Holland said that a Liberal colleague, David McGuinty asked MacKay about the impact of pollution on humans and animals by asking, "What about your dog?". This was intended as a jab at MacKay in reference to the time he was photographed on his father's farm with the animal after his relationship with Belinda Stronach had ended. Holland claims this is when MacKay allegedly made reference to Belinda Stronach's empty chair (she was absent that day) and said "You already have her."
#56
North_Ranger
Meme away, folks.
North_Ranger
Meme away, folks.
#57
Krisken
Krisken
Mr. Wilson should at least use fact checks since he doesn't have time to read the bills.
My favorite part is this:
My favorite part is this:
As long as I have your attention, I should point out that all of us already pay the costs of health care for illegal immigrants -- through emergency room visits, Emergency Medicaid, hidden fees by hospitals, workplace safety incidents, and the like. This idea that we all aren’t paying for this one way or another is non-reality-based.
#58
GasBandit
But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
GasBandit
If we're "reforming" health care, we should be getting rid of that as well.Mr. Wilson should at least use fact checks since he doesn't have time to read the bills.
My favorite part is this:
As long as I have your attention, I should point out that all of us already pay the costs of health care for illegal immigrants -- through emergency room visits, Emergency Medicaid, hidden fees by hospitals, workplace safety incidents, and the like. This idea that we all aren’t paying for this one way or another is non-reality-based.
But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
#59
Fun Size
Fun Size
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
#60
GasBandit
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.
GasBandit
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.[/QUOTE]But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.
#61
Shannow
Shannow
#62
MisterSteve
MisterSteve
Jesus, you fucking libs..... Double standard much?
#63
fade
fade
THAT right there is the problem. Angry chest beating full of nasty language instead of some civilized talk. I mean nothing makes me want to hammer out a solution like being called a name. It's the same thing that made the very idea of a town hall, even one populated by the presence of your most ideal Republican-approved educated, land-owning citizen a failing proposition. People devolve into pointless, heated argument and personal insults.
I mean, on that note, I find it amusing that you, GasBandit, constantly point to the founding fathers like they're gods, and yet claim that all government figures are somehow equal. I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president. The very name of the office implies presiding over. These are the last people who would stand up and shout "you lie" at the president. These are also the last people (outside of a few witty quips) who would think of themselves as being equivalent to the garbageman, too.
I mean, on that note, I find it amusing that you, GasBandit, constantly point to the founding fathers like they're gods, and yet claim that all government figures are somehow equal. I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president. The very name of the office implies presiding over. These are the last people who would stand up and shout "you lie" at the president. These are also the last people (outside of a few witty quips) who would think of themselves as being equivalent to the garbageman, too.
#64
sixpackshaker
And for Shannow's gif... too bad Biden did not facepalm.
sixpackshaker
Ahh, the level of political discourse on the right.Jesus, you fucking libs..... Double standard much?
And for Shannow's gif... too bad Biden did not facepalm.
#65
Fun Size
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.[/quote]
I guess this is what I don't understand then. There's a law somewhere that says I can't shoot people. I'm not sure that the law in question says how they're going to stop me - just the potential punishment for violating the law. Is this not an actual law then?
EDIT: Or did they remove the potential punishment for violation? I could see that rendering it impotent.
Fun Size
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.[/quote]But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.[/quote]
I guess this is what I don't understand then. There's a law somewhere that says I can't shoot people. I'm not sure that the law in question says how they're going to stop me - just the potential punishment for violating the law. Is this not an actual law then?
EDIT: Or did they remove the potential punishment for violation? I could see that rendering it impotent.
#66
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Why does there need to be enforcement clause in this bill?
We need to enforce immigration at the border and the workplace. It should not be the job of a doctor, or nurse to enforce the law. ICE is supposed to take care of this issue.
We need to enforce immigration at the border and the workplace. It should not be the job of a doctor, or nurse to enforce the law. ICE is supposed to take care of this issue.
#67
GasBandit
[/quote]
Yeah, the left is totally above all that, they never ever say things like "fucking repugnicans" or engage in any kind of vulgar ad hominem. Especially not for the last 8 years straight. And they certainly never started any websites where that's pretty much all that would occur.
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.[/quote]
I guess this is what I don't understand then. There's a law somewhere that says I can't shoot people. I'm not sure that the law in question says how they're going to stop me - just the potential punishment for violating the law. Is this not an actual law then?
EDIT: Or did they remove the potential punishment for violation? I could see that rendering it impotent.[/quote]
There's no punishment implied. It just says "Illegal immigrants need not apply" but supplies no actual method, or even requirement, for checking the legal status of the applicant... much less designate punishment.
GasBandit
I said all government positions are suspect, I didn't say all people who occupy said positions are equal. The difference here is I say men are great by virtue of their accomplishments that live on after them, whereas others now are saying men are great by virtue of their current job title.THAT right there is the problem. Angry chest beating full of nasty language instead of some civilized talk. I mean nothing makes me want to hammer out a solution like being called a name. It's the same thing that made the very idea of a town hall, even one populated by the presence of your most ideal Republican-approved educated, land-owning citizen a failing proposition. People devolve into pointless, heated argument and personal insults.
I mean, on that note, I find it amusing that you, GasBandit, constantly point to the founding fathers like they're gods, and yet claim that all government figures are somehow equal. I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president. The very name of the office implies presiding over. These are the last people who would stand up and shout \"you lie\" at the president. These are also the last people (outside of a few witty quips) who would think of themselves as being equivalent to the garbageman, too.
Ahh, the level of political discourse on the right.Jesus, you fucking libs..... Double standard much?
[/quote]
Yeah, the left is totally above all that, they never ever say things like "fucking repugnicans" or engage in any kind of vulgar ad hominem. Especially not for the last 8 years straight. And they certainly never started any websites where that's pretty much all that would occur.
Not to nitpick, but isn't it true that illegal immigrants would not be able to legally take advantage of Obamacare? Yes, they backed out the provisions introduced to enforce that, but the verbage is still there making it illegal.[/quote]But that we're already often paying for health care for indigent illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that Obama was speaking untruthfully when he asserted that illegal immigrants would not be able to take advantage of Obamacare.
They didn't back it out, they directly blocked it. Twice. Which makes everything else meaningless. An unenforceable law is not a law.[/quote]
I guess this is what I don't understand then. There's a law somewhere that says I can't shoot people. I'm not sure that the law in question says how they're going to stop me - just the potential punishment for violating the law. Is this not an actual law then?
EDIT: Or did they remove the potential punishment for violation? I could see that rendering it impotent.[/quote]
There's no punishment implied. It just says "Illegal immigrants need not apply" but supplies no actual method, or even requirement, for checking the legal status of the applicant... much less designate punishment.
Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.Why does there need to be enforcement clause in this bill?
We need to enforce immigration at the border and the workplace. It should not be the job of a doctor, or nurse to enforce the law. ICE is supposed to take care of this issue.
#68
Fun Size
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.
Fun Size
But that's what I was getting at. Isn't it enough to say it's illegal. Do we need to actually say "It's illegal and we expect that to be enforced"?There's no punishment implied. It just says "Illegal immigrants need not apply" but supplies no actual method, or even requirement, for checking the legal status of the applicant... much less designate punishment.
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.
#69
sixpackshaker
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.[/QUOTE]
But it gets back to what I am saying, enforce immigration law. Don't force doctors and teachers to suspect every person with a foreign accent of being a danged illegal. If an illegal will pay his share of the insurance, wtf should any of us care?
sixpackshaker
But that's what I was getting at. Isn't it enough to say it's illegal. Do we need to actually say "It's illegal and we expect that to be enforced"?There's no punishment implied. It just says "Illegal immigrants need not apply" but supplies no actual method, or even requirement, for checking the legal status of the applicant... much less designate punishment.
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.[/QUOTE]
But it gets back to what I am saying, enforce immigration law. Don't force doctors and teachers to suspect every person with a foreign accent of being a danged illegal. If an illegal will pay his share of the insurance, wtf should any of us care?
#70
GasBandit
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.[/quote]
Things that are "unenforceable" are frequently overturned.
If we were to accept that Obamacare were an otherwise workable program even except for this (which it isn't), all it would take would be to require social security/green card/whatever proof of legal status when you're filling out all the other paperwork already involved in getting treated... but as we've seen, such measures have been shot down already.
Folks, you have to remember - this isn't actually about improving the health care system. It's not about making people healthier, lowering costs, anything like that. Many suggestions about how to improve the existing system (such as letting insurance companies sell across state lines, tort reform, medical savings plans, etc) are all being completely ignored because they don't serve the REAL agenda here - a foot in the door for single payer, which then increases federal bureaucracy and makes ever more people dependent on government. It's about control and power. Not health.
Everything in Obama's speech to the legislature was pretty much a lie. It's just that Joe chose a gauche time to point it out.
GasBandit
But that's what I was getting at. Isn't it enough to say it's illegal. Do we need to actually say "It's illegal and we expect that to be enforced"?There's no punishment implied. It just says "Illegal immigrants need not apply" but supplies no actual method, or even requirement, for checking the legal status of the applicant... much less designate punishment.
I know that most of law is bullshit (raised by a lawyer), but this seems really silly to me.[/quote]
Things that are "unenforceable" are frequently overturned.
The very nature of "insurance" is you don't have a share. For insurance to work, you have to have more people paying more money in premiums than you have people spending money in claims. By the very nature of the beast, it isn't an equal-in equal-out system. Since illegals most often don't pay into the system (they're frequently paid under the table in cash, so you can't even get to them through a "public option" or single payer plan), you can't calculate them as part of the pay-in equation. But as soon as they get sick, they'll definitely be showing up in the emergency rooms as they already are.But it gets back to what I am saying, enforce immigration law. Don't force doctors and teachers to suspect every person with a foreign accent of being a danged illegal. If an illegal will pay his share of the insurance, wtf should any of us care?
If we were to accept that Obamacare were an otherwise workable program even except for this (which it isn't), all it would take would be to require social security/green card/whatever proof of legal status when you're filling out all the other paperwork already involved in getting treated... but as we've seen, such measures have been shot down already.
Folks, you have to remember - this isn't actually about improving the health care system. It's not about making people healthier, lowering costs, anything like that. Many suggestions about how to improve the existing system (such as letting insurance companies sell across state lines, tort reform, medical savings plans, etc) are all being completely ignored because they don't serve the REAL agenda here - a foot in the door for single payer, which then increases federal bureaucracy and makes ever more people dependent on government. It's about control and power. Not health.
Everything in Obama's speech to the legislature was pretty much a lie. It's just that Joe chose a gauche time to point it out.
#71
Jake
Jake
No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.
#72
GasBandit
1 down, 536 to go.
(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)
GasBandit
No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.[/quote]Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.
1 down, 536 to go.
(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)
#73
DarkAudit
1 down, 536 to go.
(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)[/QUOTE]
You've got a long list of folks you gotta outspend before you'll ever even get 1 more. SCOTUS only told Don Blankenship he couldn't buy judges. Never said jack about how many governors or state legislators he could own.
What happened to ya, Joe Manchin? You used to be cool. Now you're just in the pocket of Big Coal.
DarkAudit
No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.[/quote]Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.
1 down, 536 to go.
(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)[/QUOTE]
You've got a long list of folks you gotta outspend before you'll ever even get 1 more. SCOTUS only told Don Blankenship he couldn't buy judges. Never said jack about how many governors or state legislators he could own.
What happened to ya, Joe Manchin? You used to be cool. Now you're just in the pocket of Big Coal.
#74
GasBandit
1 down, 536 to go.
(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)[/quote]
You've got a long list of folks you gotta outspend before you'll ever even get 1 more. SCOTUS only told Don Blankenship he couldn't buy judges. Never said jack about how many governors or state legislators he could own.
What happened to ya, Joe Manchin? You used to be cool. Now you're just in the pocket of Big Coal.[/QUOTE]
Image removed - Ame
GasBandit
No, I think you'll find Mr. Bush is, in fact, out of office.[/quote]Yes, we need to enforce it there, too. But the same people blocking enforcement in that place are the same ones blocking enforcement here as well.
1 down, 536 to go.
(435 representatives, 100 senators, 1 president)[/quote]
You've got a long list of folks you gotta outspend before you'll ever even get 1 more. SCOTUS only told Don Blankenship he couldn't buy judges. Never said jack about how many governors or state legislators he could own.
What happened to ya, Joe Manchin? You used to be cool. Now you're just in the pocket of Big Coal.[/QUOTE]
Image removed - Ame
#75
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It's probably going to be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will work. But things are definitely going to get worse before they get better.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It's probably going to be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will work. But things are definitely going to get worse before they get better.
#76
Cuyval Dar
Cuyval Dar
FTFY.Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.
#77
Krisken
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.
Krisken
FTFY.[/QUOTE]Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.
#78
Cuyval Dar
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that I care.
Cuyval Dar
FTFY.[/quote]Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that I care.
#79
Krisken
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.[/quote]
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that I care.[/QUOTE]
Laaaammmeee too.
Krisken
FTFY.[/quote]Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It will be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will fail miserably. But things are definitely going to get bad before they get worse.
LLLAAAAMMMEEE.[/quote]
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that I care.[/QUOTE]
Laaaammmeee too.
#80
Iaculus
Speaking of our own model, another classic example of British parliamentary discourse:
Dennis Skinner: What I want to know, Mr Speaker, is why you allow this 'ere pompous git...
The Speaker: That, sir, is unparliamentary language! I demand you withdraw it.
Dennis Skinner: In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw pompous.
Iaculus
Umm... wasn't much of the point of the Constitution to systematically cripple the functioning of government so that it would not achieve the same level of power and influence as the British Parliament? Why else would they play all three branches off against each other, and place such limitations on their head of state?I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president.
Speaking of our own model, another classic example of British parliamentary discourse:
Dennis Skinner: What I want to know, Mr Speaker, is why you allow this 'ere pompous git...
The Speaker: That, sir, is unparliamentary language! I demand you withdraw it.
Dennis Skinner: In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw pompous.
#81
Covar
Covar
Don't forget that Under the Articles of the Confederation the Federal government was even weaker, to the point of inefficiency. The Constitution was drafted as a way to make the Federal Government strong enough to be a viable representation and arbiter of the states, while still keeping most of the governing power at the state level.
#82
AshburnerX
It was less about crippling the governments ability to function than it was about ensuring that no one part of it became so powerful as to eclipse the others. In England's government at the time, it was still very much a Pyramid affair, which was far more crippled as it was routinely fucked up by idiots near the top, who could do whatever they wanted.
AshburnerX
Umm... wasn't much of the point of the Constitution to systematically cripple the functioning of government so that it would not achieve the same level of power and influence as the British Parliament? Why else would they play all three branches off against each other, and place such limitations on their head of state?[/QUOTE]I seriously cannot believe that a group of people who wrote the things that they did would show anything but the most deferent respect for the office of president.
It was less about crippling the governments ability to function than it was about ensuring that no one part of it became so powerful as to eclipse the others. In England's government at the time, it was still very much a Pyramid affair, which was far more crippled as it was routinely fucked up by idiots near the top, who could do whatever they wanted.
#83
GasBandit
The idea that Obamacare is health "reform" is a joke. It's more like health DEform. If they were really interested in reforming health care and health insurance, they'd be looking at tort reform (which the trial lawyer lobby they are beholden to won't let happen) and other things such as increasing REAL competition by letting insurance be sold across state lines. But any ideas that don't involve a huge federal power grab are ignored or stomped on.
It isn't about health care.
GasBandit
That's more along the lines of the faux crisis that's been ginned up by obama's handlers and parroted diligently by their fawning sycophants in the mainstream media. The truth of the matter, as readers of my political thread will know from past links, is that over 70% of americans rated themselves "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their health coverage. The "47 million uninsured" figure that keeps getting batted around is also fudged, as it includes 15 million illegals and 15 million who are perfectly capable of affording insurance but they choose not to do so. This health care "crisis" is a great big molehill made into a mountain of wool, pulled over the eyes of the unwashed masses by a federal machine determined to increase its power irrevocably and a compliant media willing to fellate them as much as it takes to make it happen.Gas, all of your suggestions seem to include private corporations overseeing their own business decisions, which is the main problem with the insurance industry in the eyes of many. Their current business practice of "Always deny, always fight, only pay when you have no choice" is indefensible when such decisions routinely result in not only a poorer quality of life for the people they insure, but often times death by failing to provide for preventative treatment. That's the heart of this matter: As long as the only option available is likely to deny your claims when you need it, it's not a viable method. It's a SUSTAINABLE method, but it's never going to fly in the eyes of voters who only see their friends and families dying because nobody would help them.
I understand your viewpoint Gas... I'm just flat out telling you that it doesn't matter. People are tired of getting shafted by their insurance companies. They want a public system that won't deny them. They are going to get what they want, whether its 1 year from now or 8 years from now. It's probably going to be disastrous... and then slowly morph into a system that will work. But things are definitely going to get worse before they get better.
The idea that Obamacare is health "reform" is a joke. It's more like health DEform. If they were really interested in reforming health care and health insurance, they'd be looking at tort reform (which the trial lawyer lobby they are beholden to won't let happen) and other things such as increasing REAL competition by letting insurance be sold across state lines. But any ideas that don't involve a huge federal power grab are ignored or stomped on.
It isn't about health care.
#84
Espy
Espy
I gotta agree with Gas here (and many other brilliants folks saying the same damn thing), if anyone wants to "reform" healthcare but isn't looking at Tort Reform or letting insurance be sold across state lines I just don't take it as real reform, or at least, not as substantial reform.
#85
Armadillo
Armadillo
Thirded. Tort reform is a MUST if anything substantial is to happen with health care.I gotta agree with Gas here (and many other brilliants folks saying the same damn thing), if anyone wants to "reform" healthcare but isn't looking at Tort Reform or letting insurance be sold across state lines I just don't take it as real reform, or at least, not as substantial reform.
#86
Espy
Espy
Shame it will never happen. I don't even think under a Republican it would happen.
#87
GasBandit
GasBandit
Nope. Republicans are just as "big government" as democrats. Notice how all the hub-bub so far this year has really come from spontaneous grassroots outbursts, "blue dog" democrats or media pundits - actual republican politicians have been as quiet as they have been ineffectual.Shame it will never happen. I don't even think under a Republican it would happen.
#88
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I'd make that "spontaneous grassroots outbursts", not as you put it. It's be pretty much proven that most of these grassroots efforts (on ether side of the debate) are actually scripted and well financed groups trying to create the illusion of the common man's support.
As for Tort reform... what are you suggesting exactly? It's sounding like you don't like the idea of patients who have been harmed by their physicians having the right to sue them for negligence.
As for Tort reform... what are you suggesting exactly? It's sounding like you don't like the idea of patients who have been harmed by their physicians having the right to sue them for negligence.
#89
Rob King
Rob King
Can someone explain what you mean by tort reform? All I can imagine it meaning is tortellini.
#90
Fun Size
Typically, it's used to mean limiting the amount a person can claim in personal damages when suing a health care provider.
Fun Size
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reformCan someone explain what you mean by tort reform? All I can imagine it meaning is tortellini.
Typically, it's used to mean limiting the amount a person can claim in personal damages when suing a health care provider.
#91
AshburnerX
Typically, it's used to mean limiting the amount a person can claim in personal damages when suing a health care provider.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I can support that on some level... but let's get even more specific: What should the limit be? Should it vary by ailment? Should it be a flat rate? Who gets to decide what the limit is?
AshburnerX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reformCan someone explain what you mean by tort reform? All I can imagine it meaning is tortellini.
Typically, it's used to mean limiting the amount a person can claim in personal damages when suing a health care provider.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I can support that on some level... but let's get even more specific: What should the limit be? Should it vary by ailment? Should it be a flat rate? Who gets to decide what the limit is?
#92
GasBandit
---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------
GasBandit
That's the line the democrats are taking anyway, because that's how THEY get things going. But do you have a link to any of what you allege? Because so far, most of the "special interests" with money to burn are in *favor* of obamacare.I'd make that "spontaneous grassroots outbursts", not as you put it. It's be pretty much proven that most of these grassroots efforts (on ether side of the debate) are actually scripted and well financed groups trying to create the illusion of the common man's support.
The amount of damages has to go down. How that is achieved has many schools of thought, several of which are outlined in the wikipedia article linked above. It'd be silly to eliminate all malpractice suits, but people also have to understand that going under the knife has risks all its own. There is, of course, middle ground between "you can't sue" and "if a doctor so much as slips an inch you can ruin him financially and be set for life"... currently the slider is set too far toward the latter, and is one of the major reasons why health care is expensive in this country.As for Tort reform... what are you suggesting exactly? It's sounding like you don't like the idea of patients who have been harmed by their physicians having the right to sue them for negligence.
---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------
That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.Ok, I can support that on some level... but let's get even more specific: What should the limit be? Should it vary by ailment? Should it be a flat rate? Who gets to decide what the limit is?
#93
Rob King
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.
Rob King
I take this as a challenge.That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.
#94
GasBandit
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?
GasBandit
I take this as a challenge.That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?
#95
MisterSteve
MisterSteve
HEHEHEH.
I'm gonna explain ''politics'' one last time, because nobody here seems to get it.
Certain groups give money to campaigns to get certain politicians elected.
The politician, when elected, immediately begins sucking their dick.
That's the way it is and the way it always will be, forever and ever and ever. They even changed term limit laws and resorted to gerrymandering to allow more dick sucking over the years.
You want tort reform? Start with campaign and political reform.
You want transparency in government? Start with campaign and political reform.
You want any kind of meaningful change? Start with campaign and political reform.
When we, the people, start to demand real change, real reform and a wide open version of transparency, only then will the wheels of government start their slow and halting grind back to some kind of effective leadership.
Okay, go ahead and keep pretending any politician anywhere at anytime gives a flying fuck about you.
I'm gonna explain ''politics'' one last time, because nobody here seems to get it.
Certain groups give money to campaigns to get certain politicians elected.
The politician, when elected, immediately begins sucking their dick.
That's the way it is and the way it always will be, forever and ever and ever. They even changed term limit laws and resorted to gerrymandering to allow more dick sucking over the years.
You want tort reform? Start with campaign and political reform.
You want transparency in government? Start with campaign and political reform.
You want any kind of meaningful change? Start with campaign and political reform.
When we, the people, start to demand real change, real reform and a wide open version of transparency, only then will the wheels of government start their slow and halting grind back to some kind of effective leadership.
Okay, go ahead and keep pretending any politician anywhere at anytime gives a flying fuck about you.
#96
Rob King
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?[/QUOTE]
Key lime? What the fu -- Oh, you must be confused. That was the mis-lobotomized patient. I was lemon meringue.
---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------
Rob King
I take this as a challenge.That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?[/QUOTE]
Key lime? What the fu -- Oh, you must be confused. That was the mis-lobotomized patient. I was lemon meringue.
---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------
My former MP (I moved) is actually a pretty stand-up guy. You might not believe it, and he might be the exception, but I can tell you that the evil would have to live very deep in his heart, if there's any there to begin with.Okay, go ahead and keep pretending any politician anywhere at anytime gives a flying fuck about you.
#97
Espy
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?[/QUOTE]
YES PLZ.
Espy
I take this as a challenge.That, I think, is a topic that needs a whole lot of discussion by experts of both the medical and insurance fields, which isn't happening right now because lawyers refuse to allow it to be an option. I don't think anybody here has quite the qualifications to make that call of how far tort reform needs to go.
It should be the cost of the patient's favorite variety of pie.[/QUOTE]
Sorry about cutting off the wrong leg, here's a complimentary key lime pie?[/QUOTE]
YES PLZ.
#98
Krisken
Krisken
Arrested? No. Broke decorum and was officially "yelled at", yeah.
#99
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.according to the news here Mr Wilson was arrested for his comment.
Something tells me this is bullshit.... Too many armed republicans would go to war over something like that.
#100
Rob King
Rob King
I love how you take for granted that there will be one.No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.
#101
AshburnerX
How many has Europe had? Hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of brother fighting brother over it's long history. America's a young country, with a quickly changing ethnic make-up, under represented minorities, big problems with corruption, lots of freely available weaponry, and an entitlement problem with ALL of it's social classes. Somethings going to give eventually.
AshburnerX
I love how you take for granted that there will be one.[/QUOTE]No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.
How many has Europe had? Hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of brother fighting brother over it's long history. America's a young country, with a quickly changing ethnic make-up, under represented minorities, big problems with corruption, lots of freely available weaponry, and an entitlement problem with ALL of it's social classes. Somethings going to give eventually.
#102
ThatGrinningIdiot!
How many has Europe had? Hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of brother fighting brother over it's long history. America's a young country, with a quickly changing ethnic make-up, under represented minorities, big problems with corruption, lots of freely available weaponry, and an entitlement problem with ALL of it's social classes. Somethings going to give eventually.[/QUOTE]
Factor in things like shortage of food, water, and/ or fuel and you've got a excellent formula for chaos.
ThatGrinningIdiot!
I love how you take for granted that there will be one.[/QUOTE]No, but that's probably would have happened if he'd done it in China though. As for the armed Republicans... I honestly don't believe the next Civil War in the US will be divided along party lines. It might be around a single issue, but it's never going to be Dems Vs Republicans.
How many has Europe had? Hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of brother fighting brother over it's long history. America's a young country, with a quickly changing ethnic make-up, under represented minorities, big problems with corruption, lots of freely available weaponry, and an entitlement problem with ALL of it's social classes. Somethings going to give eventually.[/QUOTE]
Factor in things like shortage of food, water, and/ or fuel and you've got a excellent formula for chaos.
#103
Rob King
Rob King
Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't disagree. I'm just glad you see it like I do.
That's why I'm glad I live on an island, and a lightly populated one at that. There's this great mentality of unity. Unless it's over who is in control (and I doubt that would ever even pass the level of angry yelling) this island will not be divided by war.
Foreign entities ... I have no idea why they would ever bring war to my home, but if they ever did, you can be sure as shit every last one of us would be ready to do something about it.
That's why I'm glad I live on an island, and a lightly populated one at that. There's this great mentality of unity. Unless it's over who is in control (and I doubt that would ever even pass the level of angry yelling) this island will not be divided by war.
Foreign entities ... I have no idea why they would ever bring war to my home, but if they ever did, you can be sure as shit every last one of us would be ready to do something about it.
#104
GasBandit
GasBandit
Balkanization - it's what's for dinner.
#105
Rob King
Rob King
That map looks familiar ...
#106
ThatGrinningIdiot!
I keed, I keed.
ThatGrinningIdiot!
Smoke a pipe, drink strong ale, mutter and complain like old men in the pub?Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't disagree. I'm just glad you see it like I do.
That's why I'm glad I live on an island, and a lightly populated one at that. There's this great mentality of unity. Unless it's over who is in control (and I doubt that would ever even pass the level of angry yelling) this island will not be divided by war.
Foreign entities ... I have no idea why they would ever bring war to my home, but if they ever did, you can be sure as shit every last one of us would be ready to do something about it.
I keed, I keed.
#107
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I am almost CERTAIN that's the Crimson Skies map.That map looks familiar ...
#108
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
you'd be even more certain if you looked at the pic's filename.
#109
Rob King
*Puffs pensively*
Rob King
Aye.Smoke a pipe, drink strong ale, mutter and complain like old men in the pub?
*Puffs pensively*