Lucky...

But unlike before, they will cost 25% of what they do now.

It's a bad day for the freedom fighters ........... It will be fun to see what the Tea Baggers have for us now.

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine. Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"? In the Senate, having at minimum 51 senators from your party, or 50 + the VP. Anything less (the DEMS had 49 at the time in question here) and you have to rely on others, which means you don't have control. Simple, really. Wikipedia disagrees: The fact that the majority leader post switched hands to the Democrats indicated effective control. Because turncoat Lieberman caucased with the Dems that gave them majority status. If you want to call his voting record liberal or Democratic I wish you a good time. Lieberman: - In 06 his own state the Dem party ousted him in the primaries. Lieberman ran as an Indep and of the peopel who elected him, 2/3 were registered Repubs. - Lieberman was hardcore pro-war even as teh Dems backed off. - Lieberman heavily campaigned for McCain in the 08 pres race. - With the HC vote, Lieberman was the last onboard as the Dems whittled all the Dem stuff out, like public option. He threatened fillibuster many times. I bet he will vote no on HC now and denounce reconcilliation even tho it is a Repiblican tool, IOW's he will still be acting like a Republican as he hangs with the Dems. So if you want to hang in Wikipedia's every word and saythe Dems had a majority, have a good one. WHen a person campaigns for the Republican president hopeful, I have a hard time calling that person a Dem. Again, Harry Reid only became the Dem majority leader due to them having 51 members incl both indeps, caucasing with them. Truely a facade as a year later threw his support behind McCain and 2 years later threatened to block the fillibuster by the Dems. Calling Lieberman a Dem is like calling a drag queen a woman; he may look like one, but he really isn't one underneath.

You *were* answered - your inability to accept it isn't my problem. In which post (#) was it answered? #53: If you don't agree with it, you should discuss it with SPEAKER Pelosi or with MAJORITY LEADER Reid, not me. IOW: Since they both held those posts since 2007, the Dems controlled congress since then. I guess your definitions of "control" and "answer" are not the same as mine. Of course, you can "win" any argument if you dispute the definitions its component words. So what is your definition of "control"? In the Senate, having at minimum 51 senators from your party, or 50 + the VP. Anything less (the DEMS had 49 at the time in question here) and you have to rely on others, which means you don't have control. Simple, really. Right, and with Cheney breaking 8 ties, ranking 11th of 47 of all time, the 49-49 tie was significant.

That's because you're automatically pessimistic. HC costs and the premium cost have less correlation than you think. IOW's, if costs go up for an individual company and they fail to find ways to lower costs or compete as other companies find these ways, they cannot charge more to compensate; either compete or go out of business. So you're saying the alleged/expected by you increases in HC costs, the supposed money you spend will go into a black hole in the ins cos coffers? Or will it circulate? I guess if you believe as I do and that major corps are fascist it might just go into a black hole and be used as score, so you must think that in order to be correct.

--Robert A. Heinlein One of my favorites. Did they really compare themselves to the creators of Social Security, and not even mention the fact that they are the ones that have brought its demise? Sure, it's transitional: - SS - 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act - 1964 Civil Rts Act - Medicare - HC Overhaul Yea, just another cog in the anti-Republican agenda to keep people down.

Show me where I advocated that. All I'm saying is that deterence is a joke, incapacitation works for the time being. I am a gun nut, haven't been shooting for years, but I embrace gun ownership. As for your house, most states have laws that don't require retreat, which doesn't mean you can shoot them in the back as they exit a door. Wanna do it, go ahead and good luck. Hopefully you live in a "neck" state - you s/b alright. There ya go, you accidentally used the right word, "CHOICE." Deterrence must have the element of choice. If they're locked up, they have no choice, just incapacitation; don't confuse the two. If you were inferring I would run to the closet, well, you just don't know me. I don;t think you actually read the thread and just assumed what I was saying, so quit embarrassing yourself and go read my position and quote me.

Was that a, "fail" then? Should I retroactively put you down as a fail? See, you just claimed I can't see other's position, well, smoke this for a while, I had to deal with your hero spending his entire first term pushing thru the Overtime Bill, which he buillied the Dems into caving. Real great; your guy wants to rip OT from some professions, my guy wants to provide HC for as many as possible: you have your hitler, I have Schindler. Not only that, but GWB pushed his tax cits thru using reconcilliation, so now you infer dirty pool as the Dems do it. BTW, how did those tax cuts workout for you guys? Oh, 5T in the red; yea I heard.

This might help: http://www.us.depend.com/male/ But save some for November... Basically, yea. I'm shitting myself with glee. I know it might be years before we see all of the assets of this bill/law, but it's the first real token of having my party win the election 3 times in a row. The economic recovery is great, but this is diff cause it's an issue rather than a state of being as the economy is. You are so separated from reality, it's sad. It's fun to watch you and your side bitter. I wore that hat for 8 f'n years - seemed longer.

Not in political discussions with Lucky, you are absolutely correct. Rhetoric and no substance. I've posted plenty of substance, address some or just move aloooong. ` Your POV is amusing enough, but I don't feel like feeding the troll. AKA: You have nothing to say; why not just admit it? BTW, no feed troll - then stay out of kitchen. Ok - I have nothing of substance to say to you. It would be different if you would try to see others' POV.

True, combo. Yes, we're spending too much and not taxing enough; we're both right. Taxes are virtually as low as they have been since WWI (yes one) and we have such an expansive government need, so the top tax rate needs to be no less than 50%. The rub is that so many of those millionaires find a way to mitigate that AGI very low and defer it or avoid it. Whatever the science, the application is that the debt didn't soar until Reagan in 81, so guess what happened? WHat is the independent variable? Actually there were 2 (which is not scientifically desireable), but there were bigger tax cuits than there were spending increases. Why, Hoover raised taxes 260% while not cutting spending and that worked. SECOND is a deferal for, "we will just hope the forget." Also, Clinton did both simultaneously and it worked. Well sure, but there is no direct connecction between taxation and spending other than at the deficit. WHat I'm saying is that these are seperate legislative actions, so what you're saying is a bit utopian. Perhaps if we had a True Democracy that would work. But reality isn't that calculated or pretty, so let's just do what Clinton did and cut spending/raise taxes and watch things repair.

Not in political discussions with Lucky, you are absolutely correct. Rhetoric and no substance. I've posted plenty of substance, address some or just move aloooong. ` Your POV is amusing enough, but I don't feel like feeding the troll. AKA: You have nothing to say; why not just admit it? BTW, no feed troll - then stay out of kitchen.

Not in political discussions with Lucky, you are absolutely correct. Rhetoric and no substance. I've posted plenty of substance, address some or just move aloooong.

Tax increases are the real answer, it worked during and since WWII, then your hero slashed them to pre-GD levels and we scratch our heads????

And the other part; taxes. Tell me why the debt fell or if it rose, it was very minor until fascist Ronnie took the top brkt out of the 70% + range and dropped em to GD levels. It's spending and taxation, a culmination of the two. Any spending Obama has done so far is for recovery for the Great Recession and the war. I don't like Obama keeping us in Bush's wars; I don't get it. This country has had the top brkt at 70% to 94% since just after Hoover pumped em to 63% in 1932. Then FDR ran em up to 94% during the peak of teh war and even Truman and Eisenhower kept em almost that high. The that fascist pig came along and in 3 cuts dropped em to 28% and all of the sudden we created "just add water" millionaires overnight. The price we pay for that is massive debt. We have spent thru our asses since WWII, never really stopped, esp on the military, the only independent variable is the tax rate. Hell, even Clinton raised them to a paultry 40% and that stopped the bleeding, as he also cut spending. So the real answer is to cut spending and to raise taxes to top brkt 50-60%. Together we can cut teh debt and work with surplusses.

This might help: http://www.us.depend.com/male/ But save some for November... Basically, yea. I'm shitting myself with glee. I know it might be years before we see all of the assets of this bill/law, but it's the first real token of having my party win the election 3 times in a row. The economic recovery is great, but this is diff cause it's an issue rather than a state of being as the economy is.

I knew you or someone would catch me on that . I knew it as I was typing. OK, you won, they are tards . Man I'm fucking walking on air tonight, and all that BS about the Dems on the way down has just been debunked. Those 2 or 3 gov seats and the bigger Kennedy seat win being a change of direction of the pendulum is now slammed and the pendulum is soaring the Dems way. They may even hold or gain seats if Obama keeps winning issues. Senate to come, but that s/b a rubbe rstamp considering this is their bill.

Maybe he listened to your hero, Reagan too much.... http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm Cheney too.... Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired. And you have an issue with spending and wonder why we're broke? Your welcome, it's on me.

Brown vs Board of Education (more than one renderring) Loving vs Virginia 1968, so 42 years. (they were convicted of that horrible offense in 1959, which was 51 years ago) Now those conservative family values that still go on today, just that they can't brag about them. Hell, the Retardlicans did a version of that bias in 2000 in FL. And the doctor, ah, the good ole days when we could do so much more w/o fear of persecution. Hey Bill, ya forgot Mapp v. Ohio where the cops were looking for a fugitive based upon an annonymous report, decision in 1961: http:/hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio Of course they had no warrant, just a blank piece of paper and they found porn, also then illegal, for which she was prosecuted. That was the liberal Warren court. Also, warrant requirements were established, as well we had Escobedo v Illinois where the cops were shuttling defendants around the police station, hiding him from his attnys. Of course Miranda too. Oh, and Katz v Ohio, where PEOPLE HAVE PRIVACY, NOT PLACES gave us or reitterated our rights to privacy the US Const FF forgot to mention. Yep, if only we could roll the clock back 30 years we would be set; anyone have a time machine? Oh, the Mapp 6-3 decision, Harlan wrote the dissent and wanted the illegal search upheld. BTW, needless to say, Harlan was the conservative leader, so once again Airman's ideas of conservatism = freedom is just more BS backed by no real legal / political education. http://www.oyez.org/justices/john_m_harlan2 Harlan was the intellectual leader of the conservatives on the Court, frequently dissenting from the liberal activist decisions of the Warren Court. You have black and gay friends? WTF, come on, white bread, you're outta the club .

And your focus on my grammar rather than the substantive message that federal Republican politicians are rule-breaking when they don't get their way as a protocol of behavior shows the typical strawman-initiating Republican that I knew you were. Address the Republican House members and/or Joe Wilson. Oh, you don't wanna; precisely - your acquiesence is shouting your feelings. did I say grammar? No, I said "wording". Meaning (I may not have been clear enough for you) that the words you chose show there was emotion behind the message (real or fake depends on whether you're obsessed with hating republicans or you're trolling for kneejerks). I've said before that spelling and grammar flames are the lowest form of argument. I was not being the grammar nazi. (though if you found a mistake and that's why you're being so defensive I don't care either) politicians are tards. I wasn't grammar naziing. Care to comment on the behavior of the Republican Congressmen, or not so much? Show where Dems have been so brash. I don't see how you think I was calling you a grammar nazi. perhaps you do have a comprehension problem as others have suggested. all the congressmen are interested in is re-election. They quit caring what their constituents wanted a long time ago and do what they think will get them re-elected. I don't care which side they're on, they listen more to lobbyists than the people who elected them. They all will pull dirty tricks to get done what the media will publicize as good which will get them re-elected. edit: oh... I see where you thought I was calling you the grammar nazi.... I was meaning that you might have found an error in your grammar that you were being defensive about. Not that you found one in mine and that's what got your panties in a wad. Really? STRONG inuendo = quit accusation. In case you have a short memory: (though if you found a mistake and that's why you're being so defensive I don't care either) Perhaps the stress of just having all that pseudo success the Republitards bragged about with their little Kennedy seat won bt the R's and what, 2 or 3 gov seats as being the ringing of the bell of the shift of change in US politics. See, as Michael Moore said, people are drawn to the Repubs not due to their policies, but due to their united focus, even if bulldogging. People are drawn to winners and the R's shove shit thru like tax cuts and the D's have just sat there like losers. Now the D's have grown balls and in that respect become like the R's; now you don't like it. Apparently, as you errantly say, the Dem politicians have decided to risk reelection under your terms; most voted for the HC Bill. Dude, drop the grammar Nazi BS; no one was being that. As I keep asking: Care to comment on the behavior of the Republican Congressmen, or not so much? Show where Dems have been so brash. I'm not talking dirty tricks, I'm talking about disruption, that is not a dirty trick, but total lack of respect for the process. I don't see you commenting on that.

--Robert A. Heinlein Hysterical considering the Republitards of Reagan, Bush, Bush had the debt run up >8T combined, or 2/3 of the debt that this nation has had since before we were a nation. And if you look at the spill-over, IOW's the debt accrued while trying to tame the hyper-debt accumulation from Reagan and GWB, they are responsible for > 2/3 of teh US total debt. Yet you want to post some crap about parasites? As long as you ignore the fiscal mess that your party (now you'll try to call yourself a Libertarian as if there is a difference) has brought this country down under. Repubs aren't stupid, just bad at math.

And your focus on my grammar rather than the substantive message that federal Republican politicians are rule-breaking when they don't get their way as a protocol of behavior shows the typical strawman-initiating Republican that I knew you were. Address the Republican House members and/or Joe Wilson. Oh, you don't wanna; precisely - your acquiesence is shouting your feelings. did I say grammar? No, I said "wording". Meaning (I may not have been clear enough for you) that the words you chose show there was emotion behind the message (real or fake depends on whether you're obsessed with hating republicans or you're trolling for kneejerks). I've said before that spelling and grammar flames are the lowest form of argument. I was not being the grammar nazi. (though if you found a mistake and that's why you're being so defensive I don't care either) politicians are tards. I wasn't grammar naziing. Care to comment on the behavior of the Republican Congressmen, or not so much? Show where Dems have been so brash.

People ballsy enough to go for fail even after the dems released that they had it locked with the Stupak agreement? Alrighty then, hope over reality.

Just means that Republicans were quicker to adopt the InternetS than Democrats. The democrats are probably still having debates about whether this new fangled email thingy is a good way to go. Supportive democrats are trying to woo Hispanic representatives with promises of immigration reform in order to get them behind their spam campaign. But judging by my mom, it seems clear to me that Republicans are more likely to believe the trash that circulates on the 'net. fIXED IT

Regardless of the lie count, which would be impossible to score anyway, look at the types of lies and the depravity these lies rank. Repubs: - Nixon, Agnew = election scandal/evesdropping, tax evasion, bribery, etc - Ford = took the VP/P role only after he promised to pardon Nixon, after Nixon pardoned Agnew. - GWB = lied to congress about intel to go into a >1 trillion dollar war, 4200 lives and counting. - Reagan = lied about Iran/Contra; trading arms for hostages. - Libby and friends = lied about outing a fed agent, then was commuted on a 30 mo prison term. - Clinton = lied about cumming all over a dress, leading to a stain that just wouldn't come out. So I think the depth of these lies, regardless of the number which is not ascertainable, are clear that the Repugs are, well, repugnant.