Lucky...

Says who? The US Constitution? Mother Nature? You're daft. Privacy isn't a right in the rag you call the US Const, yet the living Const has it as a right as with Katz v Ohio and others, so I'll go with the living COnst, thank you. Find me the word, "privacy" in the US Const.

Did that occur in the US? Due to tax and Social Security considerations, the IRS is getting very strict about employers who treat their workers as 1099 contractors (not subject to withholding) when they ought to be treated as W-2 wage-earners (subject to withholding). Well, Nazimerica, if that counts . They aren't 1099ers, they are hired directly thru contract companies on loan to the same employer. Look, I know you're a lawyer and you use correct terms, as do I. I guess I've been around dumbshit blue-collar types and have morphed my languange to theirs! Contract employee = direct hire employee. Temporary employee = hired thru temp agency Contrator = typically licensed thru the ROC and does work on houses/construction (1099) But the dumbshits in my field, acft maint, work thru temp agencies and are loaned out, sometimes states away or overseas, are paid as contract (direct) employees thru temp agency with no benefits and loaned out to their former direct employer. So this company just laid off maost of them and brought them in teh back door as temp employees w/o any benefits for less money per hour. AKA: the American way And the kicker is these blue-collar dumbshits hate Obama and hate the HC bill even tho they are worried about the end of their COBRA. Just amazing from my view watching these litterally stupid pieces of shit pulling for their own demise.

So on one hand you want there to be an advantage to having money and you like class disparity, then on the other you want there to be no division in class and that all people, regardless of wealth status, to live on the same scale? You're twisting back and forth to suit your argument of: FUCK POOR PROPLR.

It certainly wasn't any sort of "surprise" that caught the minority members out of town. They were all present to vote and had been in the building for the vast majority of the day. It wasn't a surprise, it was non-exempt overtime. I sort of expect people in management positions to have to do that every once in awhile. I'm sorry, who promised that? Pelosi, several times. Obama promised 5 days during the campaign, as I recall (those pesky stimulus bills exempted, of course). In fact, there's a cspan clip floating around from 2005 when Pelosi was screaming about the Republicans not giving people time to read the bills and what an outrage it was ... guess that's not quite as important now, though. I don't care if she did or not, WHO GIVES A FUCK, this is bigger than when Bush lied about intel to go into Iraq, if you're not reading up, then you just don't care. You would say Congress is worthless and lazy, then demean them for spending 2 saturdays voting on this bill.

HUH? So if some senators were at home mailing it in it would enable them to read it? See, you pick on the fringes instead of dealing with the meat of the issue. It is so irrelevant that this was voted on Sat night or that it wasn't posted online. I mean, unless a person is w/o a pulse, they know of the HC Bill.

What I can't figure out is why, if the "conservative" position is so strong, why 39 members wouldn't want to talk about that openly and on the record in the Senate? What does not talking about the subject accomplish? You'd think that if they really had a strong argument, they'd be begging to have it openly debated before being voted on. That's because their arguments don't make sense, as with RW corporate-loving Nazis. Unless they become in a position of need, then it's all about social care.

Republican Christianity is quite different than other forms of Christianity where compassion and forgiveness are paramount.

Oh, like the doctors do in all or any of the Socialized countries?

Sorry to disappoint you So many people would be far worse off if we didn't have Medicare and Medicaid now. Sure it can be made better. You should be helping YOUR government to improve it. Sounds like you need to do some research and quit letting emotion make your decisions. Medicaid/Medicare is that 'broken, bankrupted system' that you keep hearing Congress talk about. The healthcare bill fiasco strips even MORE money out of Medicare. Y'know, when Pelosi was talking about 'taking care of senior citizens', I thought she meant HELPING them....so much for THAT idea! Thank you for the advice. We do need to improve and fund Medicaid and Medicare and make them robust and open them up to ALL americans. Passing health care reform with some kind of public option is the first step. Basic health care SHOULD BE a universal right, not a commodiity to be sold for profit. Fixed it for ya. In the US it's a luxury.

I agree Mike, just to think people get emotioal about themselves and family members getting ill and sometimes dying due to no HC is just too much; suck it up cry babies. Fuck, grow a set and figure out your medical dillemas on your own. I wish you were king for a day, Mike, you have it all figured out. Hey, I have an idea, why not take the military budget that is 8 times that of the #2 spender and cut it in half, use the money to shore up Medicare/Medicaid? Or just throw it out and let seniors and other needy people suffer, as in your perfecct world, that is, until you get there. Where does it state that? And even if it did, would that mean limits to benefits? Probably not but you'll guarantee it does. You're acting as tho whatever changes to Medicare funding, if any, would affect benefits. You still have yet to substantiate that.

CHEER! This will be great. One small step closer to government run health care. Yeah, because they've done SUCH a great job with Medicaid/Medicare... *Edit to add sarc tag* I agreee, throw it all out and give tax cuts to the rich; they'll take care of the poor. That has worked flawlessly in the past . BTW, my new employer has just laid off 80% of its direct employees and hired them all back as contractors w/o any benefits. This is Mike's dream vision for America

But you would cried if the Dems fillibustered Bush's shit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but cloture has been established, isn't that a moot point now? Can't they do a limited debate based upon the rules of cloture and then go to a vote and pass with 51 votes?

Post 100 is yours. In the real world it is thought of as honest to quote a person's own words, not some bastardization of that person's words in your misquoted terms. BTW, this is obvioulsy over your head, so what I mean is that you have to quote a person's entire statement to get context, an elementay concept in the legal world, the litterary world, etc. And guys like you denounce Wikipedia that has a bibliography and partial quote away. No, I posted this. I realize that sitting on your tractor you don't get big-city educcation, but the way it works is this: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. And to post it as a partial takes it out of context and is basically doishonest. But if you must do so you post it like this: I think it is real and legit, ..." That shows you omitted words that might change the meaning. Again, please finish plowing the fields, but that is your English lesson for today. I didn't research the Onion, which is why I posted the inquiry. But as you see, neo-cons won't talk the unprecidented GDP turnaround now or with Hoover's tripling of the tax rate in 32, followed by more of the same under FDR. No, they want to talk rhetoric and leave the tough stuff alone. Furthermore, see how the neo-cons stick together? Yea, ever see Kallend, Quade, Bill or other more liberal people swarm to each other? Nah. Watch that SNL skit I posted, here it is in case you can't find it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html You'll better be able to understand yourselves.

That's the brightest thing you've written yet.

Says the guy that called the PH attack a 1945 venture. Says the guy that posted a link from the Onion and called it legit and an Republican rag. (Remember that you referred to that Onion video with this: "I think it is real and legit".) Ah yes, more dishonesty from the source of lies; you. See how you have my supposed quote? Of course it's incorrect how you have the period outside the quotation mark, but I think even the most uneducated know what you mean. When you take a partial sentence as a quotation, you need to place, "..." on the front and/or back end if it to show it's a partial quote or it's a blatant lie and misrepresentation. This is the entire quote: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. By that I meant that the feelings were real, but used satire to hide them. I wrote: Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it. By 'real' I mean is this a real site espousing their typical racist, homophic BS; you know, good Republican Christian values. The whole thread was started as I was under the impression that the Onion was a RW rag, as I had rarely seen it before and then just glanced at it. I see vile hatred and I think RW rag, my bad.

Worth noting: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3699425;search_string=unemployment%2042;#3699425 Lucky writes: The first graph depicts the unemployment rate from 1929 to 1942. Unemployment was down to < 5% in 42, making me think the war had nothing to do with the recovery of the GD, as we entered the war in Dec 8, 42, officially. Some remark about stones and glass houses appears to be in order. You wrote 42 twice, so you cannot claim it to be a keystroke error. No, the first 1942 was in regard to the fact that Dec 1941 is all but 1942 and in round numbers it is 1942; that was intentional. When I'm referencing the economy, I speak in round numbers. For instance, I'm not going to pick out march 17th, any given year, I'm going to reference the first quarter or the entire year, etc. So referencing 1942 with unemployment numbers is what I meant. Dec 8, 1942 is, in round terms, 1943. But the war did officially start on Dec 8, 1941, that was a typo, as the 2 key was next to the 1 key. Go watch the SNL skit I posted, we all love neo-cons that back-slap each other - wouldn't be the same if they quit.

I think he should get a divorce immediately from Tania and have the perfect affair with Ann Coulter. They can try to outshrill each other while trying to have sex. They would probbaly produce the most liberal person ever, after seeing what a couple douchbags his/her parents are.

Now the question is do you think that the other side does the same? The difference between left and right extremism is the left plays on your sympathies, the right shoves it down your face and tries to make you feel isolated if you don't go along. The right employs thuggery.

Although you might wanna give Colbert a free pass this week since he's on a USO tour in Iraq entertaining the troops. Even if it's self promotion, he is bringing some joy into their lives. > you might wanna give Colbert a free pass Still doesn't change the fact he's an ASS. As to my thoughs of Glenn Beck, he's a wealthy man. Works as long as you assess people like this: - Rich people are good - Poor people are theives and scum.

Yes. The meaningless, feel good gesture without any actual ideas to back it up. As far as I can tell, the only thing the tea bag gesture did was give a slight bump to Lipton. Other than that, it had nor suggested anything meaningful. They might as well of just stood around singing Kumbaya. While "fun" it doesn't actually do anything. >>without any actual ideas to back it up. For varying values of "actual ideas" (that liberals agree with), evidently. Not that you're in ANY way partisan against conservatives, of course. Quade was talking about Beck, the topic, then you bring in Quade's beliefs; typical ad hominem. See whatcha do? I get it, it's that or defend Beck.

Limbaugh and the likes has had their stock soar after Obama's election. Some conservatives are foolish enough to believe that Limbaugh is really upset about last Nov when in reality it worked out just right.

I never stated or infered stupidity; that is your word. Well, and Ron's to me a couple posts back. Your word. Not knowing something isn't stupidity, it's naivety, ignorance, etc. For 2 reasons: - I try to engage in enlightening issues, you make a claim, are wrong and get into the 10th division to try to bail yourself out. The 20 degree question you had is a great example, mine was a paraphrasation of carb ice as was yours of turn degrees, yet you then break into a semantic mess of ridiculous splitting of hairs. This goes back and forth and turns people off. - As with the SNL slit I posted, as one goes all neo-cons go. I would think you would quit being so petty and we dicuss issues. Don't get ridiculous as with 'ramping uo for war by sending ships to Europe and the draft.' If it wrong in large part, call it, but if it's true quit trying to qualify whether the military service was with guns or brooms. Of course you do so to run people out, all are left are the typical neo-con suspects there to back you at all costs.

From Mr. PH was attacked in 1945. Like Guam? Yea, that wasn't invloved in WWII. Also, I didn't state what or why, THERE WAS A PEACETIME DRAFT IN 1940 IN PREPARATION FOR THE WAR. You don't want to acknowledge it? Cool. Draft = war; not real hard to understand. Source. Depleted by whom and why (GD or ?). If depleted, was it worse than Germany? Source. Right, in preparation of the war, as the US got startegic trade for this. These were loaned/leased to the Britts for military bases in Newfoundland, Bermuda, and the British West Indies. So we lend the Britts and other countries war supplies to fight Germany and Italy and we're not ramping up for teh war. If you lend a gun to a person who you know has the inteent to shoot someone, YOU ARE AS COMPLICIT AS THEY ARE. And why did we want these bases? So when we had to launch from there to Germany/Italy it would be more strategic. Here's a chronology of WWII preparation in 1940, 5 years before PH was atatcked according to you BTW, the Pacific Theatre was being prepared before the European Theatre. http://www.navsource.org/Naval/1940.htm - 09/03 Tue. President announces "Destroyers for Bases" executive agreement with Great Britain; the United States to give Great Britain 50 destroyers in return for 99-year leases on bases in the Bahamas, Antigua, St. Lucia, Trinidad, Jamaica, and British Guiana. - 09/06 Fri. First eight destroyers are transferred to Britain under "Destroyers for Bases" agreement. Really? We lend 8 destroyers to the britts, making us more vulnerable and that's not actively preparing for the war? We draft in so-called peacetime an we're not preparing for the war. Dude, you have a real weak knack for trying to split hairs on issue and get your cheerleaders in tow. Yawn; you're easy. - 08/31 Sat. President calls 60,000 National Guardsmen into Federal service. Oh and lending money to China for teh war isn't ramping up either - no way. - 11/30 Sat. United States lends $50 million to China for currency stabilization, and grants an additional $50 million credit for purchase of supplies. OK, so they had nice rifles but weren't preparing for war . This is a meaningless point of yours, whatever they did seemed to work well for the greatest generation minus that pussy Reagan who was worthless in WWII. My uncle died in Germany, that punk-bitch Reagan made movies and got primo Hollywood ass. Look, what I wrote was that the US was ramping up for war to include things like the peacetime draft and sending ships to Europe. That's true, nothing I wrote was untrue. For some reason you want to qualify every last little part of ramping up, which is a general statement. I just don;t see, after you admit that we did enter a draft and did move ships to Europe in 1940 how you can try to spin it around that somehow these weren't acts of preparing for the war that we did enter into. It's just jaw-droppingly funny to watch the absurb ways that you try to say, 'well, it's completely treu other than these parts where it's kinda true but not, but it's ultimately true,but not at all. Dude, all I said was that we were ramping up for the war in 1940. By the chronology I attached we were. We did send ships over and we did enter a peacetime draft. To pretend that you know what transpired in basic training (esp for a guy who undoubtedly never served) in 1940 is also hillarious. Furthermore, whatever they did it seemd to work well considering we lost just over 400k and did a LOT in contribution to the war effort. A WWII vet would probably kick you in the teeth for saying their training was a joke. But you could defend by saying you don't know; you never enlisted.

Nah, a typing error generally has an adjacent key-stroke, the 1 and 5 aren't that close, esp from a guy who likes to split hairs. Nope, cheerleading; you betcha style It's detailed here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html ....at the end of the day, we stick together.... Yep, cheerleaders..... I inquired, as per the question mark, but I do admit it was a skit, you OTOH can't bring yourself to admit the truth; that is a difference. And that's what I'm trying to impart upon you. Then why is no one razzing you for what you refuse to admit? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/snl-republican-meeting-mo_n_167036.html Cheerleaders, that's why. Well you do now; you're welcome. Must have been out of brilliance then. So what? And I am saying iwhen I inquired as to whether the skit was legit, I should have researched since I wasn't familiar with the Onion. But what is spectacular is that when a person inquires about a skit, that becomes newsworthy, when a guy claims PH was atatcked in 1945 that is ignored. Explained by the SNL skit: ....at the end of the day, we stick together....

YOU created this strawman. Not anyone else. And how did I supposedly do that?