Fuck its silent in here.......

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

But, if one is really interested in reducing the number of abortions, one would want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Relentlessly shitting all over the pro-rubella community would be a good idea, as well.

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

[Pre]

The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

[R-V]

Stupak's in, it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

[Brownie]

Stupak's in, it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

November's gonna hai too.

[Gilgamesh]

Stupak's in, it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

November's gonna hai too.

Yeah, campaigning in favor of preexisting conditions and caps on health insurance spending is going to be amazing.

If the bill is so bad, let the Dems pass it and then shoot themselves in the foot, instead creating controversies and erecting procedural roadblocks.

[Gilgamesh]

DPD, because I like history.

"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Bad call, Alf. Republicans lost that presidential election in a landslide. By the time they finally regained the White House -- 16 years later -- their nominee, Dwight Eisenhower, had abandoned the party's repeal platform.

[R-V]

Stupak's in, it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray, teabaggers.

November's gonna hai too.

Cold comfort, according to former Bush speechwriter David Frum.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

[Wheezer]

Stupak's in, it's gonna hai. Go drink some buttspray a frothing mug of trichomonadal discharge, teabaggers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317

Hamm insisted before the committee that rescission was a necessary tool for Assurant and other health insurance companies to hold the cost of premiums down for other policyholders. Hamm asserted that rescission was "one of many protections supporting the affordability and viability of individual health insurance in the United States under our present system."

[Chuck to Chuck]

Cold comfort, according to former Bush speechwriter David Frum.

You blew the lede:

(1) It's a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

If this bill even works a little bit, it gives 30,000,000 voters medical care.

The GOP held Florida for one election with an open expenditure Medicare D.

How many electoral votes does this have the opportunity to pick up?  If Hispanics love this bill as much as has been said in numerous articles, and Hispanics keep growing in Texas....

[thehawk]

That Frum article is full of interesting items, here's a third point to consider.

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Bad weekend for the tea baggers and the loud mouths (would appear that its the Republicans that is now held hostage by its more radical members).  Will be interesting to see if its bad for conservatives or Republicans who have an interest in governing.

[SKO]

That Frum article is full of interesting items, here's a third point to consider.

I've been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush's listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours.

Bad weekend for the tea baggers and the loud mouths (would appear that its the Republicans that is know held hostage by its more radical members).  Will be interesting to see if its bad for conservatives or Republicans who have an interest in governing.

I'm going to be selfish for a second and forget the repercussions of this bill and how it will most likely be the death knell of democracy or something like that and ask instead if it's going to benefit me. I'm 21 and a full time student. As it stands, as soon as I turn 22 in September I'm going to be off of my mother's insurance. Someone mentioned that they thought this bill extended coverage to like age 25 or something if you're a full time student. Does anyone know if that's true or how soon it will take effect? I'll still hate it regardless, but I'd like to get mine.

[Wheezer]

I'm going to be selfish for a second and forget the repercussions of this bill and how it will most likely be the death knell of democracy or something like that and ask instead if it's going to benefit me. I'm 21 and a full time student. As it stands, as soon as I turn 22 in September I'm going to be off of my mother's insurance. Someone mentioned that they thought this bill extended coverage to like age 25 or something if you're a full time student. Does anyone know if that's true or how soon it will take effect? I'll still hate it regardless, but I'd like to get mine.

Here.

[D. Doluntap]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHD5nd3QLTg

[Wheezer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHD5nd3QLTg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5l7uwtqkqU

[morpheus]

The paragraph right above the one you quoted throws an awful lot of uncertainty on it.  Then, on top of that, you're telling me that three data points constitute a trend?  Awesome, then we're clearly headed toward a global ice age.  This is what happens when a doctor tries his hand at economics.

Discussions are cool, disagreement great, I even think that just hearing opinions and
the thoughts of people with vastly different views is a fantastic thing.  We live in a
society that has so much personalized news (there is are so many options of "news"
sources that cater to specific opinions) that we can all manage to stay involved and
"informed" without actually learning about the different sides of our issues.  However,
in this case morph I feel like you're doing a lot of nuh-uh'ing instead of debating.  The
last few pages seem to consist of you positing your opinion and asking for someone to
provide studies/statistics to the contrary, and then bagging on the studies and statistics
that people are providing w/o providing anything actually contrary.

OK.  That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?  Remember... change for change's sake is not necessarily a good thing.  It might be, it might not... but you're suggesting that the burden of proof is on those of us who think the proposed changes are worse than doing nothing.  I say it's on those who are working to re-order a large chunk of the economy.

It's all moot anyway given this weekend's events.  I'll just have to try to stack enough cheddar so I can fully "get mine" before the crushing national debt starts to really kick in.