Glenn Nye is a No!

Don't make me strip down and come in there!

Oh, I forgot. The pro-choicers havent signed on to the Executive order.

My bad.

I like it hard and fast up the pooper.

Anyone here help a brother out?

Be right back. Have to go sniff some bicycle seats.

Gandalf wants to add his two cents worth.

(-credit Tim3rd)

I have the IQ of a boiled potato and a penis the size of a pencil eraser.

”Envy comes from people's ignorance of, or lack of belief in, their own gift

someone said it, and it's true.

Did you hear that approx. 150 right-wing extremists gathered in DC? They were threatening gun violence and shouting racial slurs because they don't want poor people to have health care.

If we went around punishing people for being stupid, Bob would have been in prison all his life.

I AM bob!!!

Some people have said I'm hung like a baby carrot, when in fact I'm actually hung like a button mushroom.

If the Stupak bloc is hoping to satiate their consciences, and fool the voters, by caving to some Obama Executive Order they would be well advised to think again.  Such an action will place the life of the unborn – all American unborn – in the hands, and at the whim, of a single, solitary individual.  That being whomever holds the office of President of the United States.  Obama can change his mind at any time.  Any follow on President could.  Sttupak is fooling himself if he thinks such an outcome will protect anyone for very long.

I once masturbated into a sock.

we are at the receiving end of Another Smear from the Democrats and the Liberal Media that looks to be another HOAX

Well, I heard an unspoken "boy" at the end of that.

I AM bob!!!

No, I'MMM bob!!!

I AM bob!!!

No, I'MMM bob!!!

Posted by: bab at March 21, 2010 12:35 AM (+mesW)

She was last seen getting into Peter North's cummobile.

(Gulp)  I've seen this at Redstate and HHR.  Some website I've never even heard of is quoting a source who says that there has been a deal on an Executive Order with Stupak.  Maybe you guys can look into it.  I hope its not true.

Posted by: yarrrrr at March 21, 2010 12:40 AM (9DPQr)

The Precedent does this for fun.  He gets a kick out of just making shit up.  It's a game with him.  He knows that the lame streams have his back, so he loves pushing it to the limit.

Posted by: Bob's thumb at March 21, 2010 12:46 AM (EquV1)

Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Donna at March 21, 2010 12:47 AM (6heFO)

Reconciliation is for budgetary measures; it cannot include abortion language.

 I'm totally out of Hotair, as of tonight.

What happened at HA?

MSM says there were hundreds of people - 1500-2500 max.

My guess is they are using CBO numbers, as the CBO was told to report them by Pelosi and Reid.  Of course the media is neutral.

Posted by: El Duende at March 21, 2010 12:54 AM (YVCl0)

Allah sent me two emails complaining about my use of the word "secession" and claiming that it was advocating violence.  I don't know where he thought that up.  Secession is one of the only non-violent ways out of this mess.  One email would have been nothing, but two was too ridiculous.  I wrote him back and told him that he was an imbecile if he thought that talking about secession was promoting violence and that he should learn some English and ban me.  Well ... one out of two ain't bad

The end of the internets.

Scandi Gangsters.

http://tinyurl.com/y8nlrj8

Sanchez will spread her legs like a $300 million Louisiana whore.

spit

I know that this point has been made before but the Bill is just another attempt to get abortion paid for by taxpayers.

All the 'reform' is just noise.

fire dog lake has 209 NOS, with 10 leaning NO, and  8 unknowns.

Wierd. Wouldnt it be something if it failed? WOW

Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 21, 2010 01:12 AM (A46hP)

Not sure about that, but you can bet your ass anyone carrying a "secede!" sign won't be welcome in Allah and "Captain" Ed's little playhouse no mo'.

Posted by: El Duende at March 21, 2010 01:10 AM (YVCl0)

Thanks, El Duende, but I'm out of there.  I'll see you here, and I'll probably be hanging a bit at the facebook group - though I am not a fan of facebook, at all.  Facebook reminds me of Google, and I avoid google at all costs.

Consider this:  the GOP will likely achieve a solid majority in the House, but one well short of veto-proof.

BUT, since all spending bills must originate in the House, the GOP might choose not to fund, for example, the 16,000 IRS positions needed to snoop on everyone to force them to buy insurance.

Obojangles can't veto what the House doesn't pass, ergo.... we can gum up the works, big time, while hacking away legislatively to repeal this abomination.

How do you even talk to Julian Epstein?  He can't just debate the issues.  Instead, he always, always has to start out with a premise like this:  "Obama looks strong on this issue."  Yeah.  Obama looks strong on healthcare reform.  You bet, dipshit.

He's just intolerable.

I like it hard and fast up the pooper.

Anyone here help a brother out?

Posted by: bob at March 21, 2010 12:07 AM (Esm8U)

I'll bee wight ober.

Normal Person:  "The sky is blue."

Epstein:  "No, it's green."

Normal Person:  "Really, the sky is blue."

Epstein:  "Everyone knows the sky is green."

Normal Person:  "Dude, look.  The sky is blue.  See for yourself.  Right there.  Above your head."

Epstein:  "I don't know why you have to bring in these irrelevant considerations when it has been well-established that the sky is green."

Normal Person:  "Whatever, asshole."

Epstein:  "See, you're giving in because you know I'm right, and you agree with me.  That is clear from your response.  Thank you for saying that I was right all along."

Normal Person:  "Sigh."

PA, I think she's just laying low too.  Think of all the calls she can avoid.

I miss Bob Dornan.

In other news, CNN reporting the Dems are bringing in Clenis to help pass the bill.

They don't have the votes.

Bob, your not irritating because your a contrary person. Your irritating because your boring you're Bob.

Posted by: Mallamutt at March 21, 2010 12:25 AM (V9SYy)

FIFY (It sucks to be fucking Bob).

Posted by: BS Inc. at March 21, 2010 01:27 AM (0+gHN)

LOL! Poor Allah, but to be fair I think he, Ed, and Michelle all decided to cool off the threads after the LGF sabotage.

In other news, CNN reporting the Dems are bringing in Clenis to help pass the bill.

They don't have the votes.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 21, 2010 01:30 AM (P33XN)

Posted by: Dan at March 21, 2010 01:33 AM (1jzSs)

I will probably pass out as my blood pressure plummets back to respectable levels.

Posted by: El Duende at March 21, 2010 01:27 AM (YVCl0)

Knucklehead and a bunch of others put it together.  It's <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=314670616874"> here</a>.  I joined up but I haven't posted anythign there, yet.  For keeping in touch, though.

Well if it is going to win, it will be an eek out. Probly will be an eek out if it goes down too. Thats the nature of this beast at this point.

Maybe it will be like the amnesty vote. People thought they had it in the bag and then a few more No's started popping up and then the flood gates opened and you had clowns changing their votes when they realized it would fail to pass.

'clenis'

heh...wonder if Gibbson has heard of that? ...nawwww...

From a link at Hillary44
FDL Newsdesk:

Glenn Nye, Loretta Sanchez to Vote “No” — 204 Yes, 209 No
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday March 20, 2010 8:14 PM

To the surprise of pretty much no one, Glenn Nye remains a “no” vote on health care. But I admit I didn’t see this one coming. From Roll Call ($):

As their whip efforts narrow to just a handful of Members, House Democratic leaders are facing an unlikely problem vote: Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

Sanchez was nowhere to be found on Saturday — she was in Florida on a fundraising jaunt, two Democratic sources said — and while leaders expected her to return for the Sunday vote on final passage, they weren’t assured. What’s more, leaders now list the Orange County Democrat as a “no” vote.

[]

Sanchez this week told the Orange County Register that she needs to be satisfied that the health care overhaul is affordable. “The Senate bill is a bad bill,” she told the paper.

Politically, the vote should be a relatively easy lift for Sanchez. The seven-term lawmaker has been re-elected with at least 60 percent of the vote since 2000, winning by a decisive 69 percent in 2008. President Barack Obama carried the district by 60 percent.

Sanchez voted “yes” last time. She faces a well-funded GOP challenger, Van Tran, in the 2010 election. Although Obama carried her district by 60%, Schwarzenegger won it in 2006 as did Bush in 2004. It has a growing Vietnamese community, which Tran hopes to capitalize on. “They come out and vote in large numbers, and they’re 2-to-1 Republican,” he told the Associated Press.

This makes Nancy PelosiÂ’s job considerably harder. SanchezÂ’s jump could be a sign that there are members who have been quiet about their positions and hoping theyÂ’d never have to take the vote. But with the fear of tough elections ahead looming large, more could follow her lead. I know thereÂ’s a tendency to look at these votes as carved in stone once members commit publicly, but I fully remember what happened to Ciro Rodriguez during the Cap and Trade vote:

During the vote, Washington Rep. Jay Inslee, one of the taller members of the House, guarded the doors on the floor leading out to the SpeakerÂ’s Lobby, warning members not to leave the floor in case anyone needed to switch his or her vote. But that didnÂ’t stop some Democrats, like Colorado Rep. John Salazar, from voting no early and sneaking out to avoid getting pressured by party leaders.

(******* MeÂ… THIS is TOO funny*****)

Leadership aides say Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez promised Pelosi he’d vote yes, but voted no and sprinted from the chamber. California Rep. Xavier Becerra tried unsuccessfully to flag him on his cell phone — and Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) bounded into the ornate Speaker’s Lobby off the floor shouting, “Rodriguez! Rodriguez!” as puzzled reporters looked on.

Of course Lloyd Doggett, who made an impassioned speech swearing to vote against the bill that very morning, ultimately voted yes. So that works both ways.

Nye moves out of the “undecided” category, and Loretta Sanchez makes her first appearance on the chart. That bumps the total to 209 no, 204 yes.
*******************************

LOL! Poor Allah, but to be fair I think he, Ed, and Michelle all decided to cool off the threads after the LGF sabotage.

Posted by: El Duende at March 21, 2010 01:33 AM (YVCl0)

See, that just seems like giving in to the "heckler's veto".

And, I don't know how you can talk about solutions to the issue of creeping socialism without talking secession, so I don't see how banning the discussion from happening helps Hot Air's business model, assuming it wants traffic from people who are engaged in the issues of the day. It's not as if today's political climate is about resolving minor differences. It's about huge divergences in worldviews so large that it may not be possible to reconcile them under the methods of governance written into the Constitution.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 21, 2010 01:00 AM (A46hP)

I still post over there (as me), but fairly rarely. I don't like being told what to say about critical issues. We may not have a country left in weight months, at this rate of multi-trillion dollar theft... the middle-of-the-road Civics Class shit is over, in that case.

As for HA, when they banned MB4 for a while, I got rather pissed off. MB4 was a bit screwy, but rather entertaining. He hated McCain as much as I did, which is saying a lot. 

It's becoming like Lucianne.com, which is a fucking sad legacy site micromanaged by some old hag.

"In 1994 Sanchez ran unsuccessfully as a moderate Republican or the Anaheim City Council under her then married name, Loretta Brixey. In 1996, she changed parties and recast herself as a moderate Democrat to run in the 46th District against six-term Republican incumbent Bob Dorman.

The 46th had always had a Democratic tilt, but became even more Democratic after the 1990 census when it received a considerably larger number of Hispanics than had previously been in the district. Sanchez won by 984 votes, and Dornan contested the election, alleging that many votes were cast by people who were not American citizens.

A Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by non-citizens. An additional 124 votes had already been thrown out by California officials. These votes were not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt, so the investigation was halted and the outcome was upheld by a Republican-controlled Congress, making Sanchez the first American of Mexican heritage to represent Orange County in Congress. Dornan continues to assert that illegal voter registration of non-citizens was decisive in Sanchez's victory. In consultation with the INS, the House committee identified as many as 4,700 questionable registration affidavits; however, the probe was dropped before these affidavits were investigated. As Article I Section V of the Constitution of the United States provides that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" the investigation was without binding authority."

Fascinating stuff.  She holds an MBA and worked as a financial analyst.  So, she should know what is going on much better than your average congressional bear.   If any of this stuff ever leads to litigation she would have that sticky little problem that Martha Stewart had.

As everyone sez, Pelosi won't call the vote until she knows she has the votes.  I guess this means we won't get the pleasure of seeing this thing voted down, if that's the way things are headed. 

I still post over there (as me), but fairly rarely. I don't like being told what to say about critical issues. We may not have a country left in eight months, at this rate of multi-trillion dollar theft... the middle-of-the-road Civics Class shit is over, in that case.

As for HA, when they banned MB4 for a while, I got rather pissed off. MB4 was a bit screwy, but rather entertaining. He hated McCain as much as I did, which is saying a lot.

MB4 is one of my favorites. We agree on a lot of stuff, but I really like his style, anyway.  I always assumed that he was posting under a few aliases, too - a couple of which post here, occasionally. 

It's becoming like Lucianne.com, which is a fucking sad legacy site micromanaged by some old hag.

Posted by: TexasJew at March 21, 2010 01:51 AM (KXW8j)

I missed the whole Lucianne thing. I don't think I ever visited that site more than a couple of times. I pretty much missed the whole Chuckles thing, too.  I was posting at Powerline forum at the time, which was really a great forum.  But don't get me started on how they shut that down ...

See, that just seems like giving in to the "heckler's veto".

And, I don't know how you can talk about solutions to the issue of creeping socialism without talking secession, so I don't see how banning the discussion from happening helps Hot Air's business model, assuming it wants traffic from people who are engaged in the issues of the day. It's not as if today's political climate is about resolving minor differences. It's about huge divergences in worldviews so large that it may not be possible to reconcile them under the methods of governance written into the Constitution.

Posted by: BS Inc. at March 21, 2010 01:48 AM (0+gHN)

Well I'm also pretty sure we're past resolving these issues in polite conversation and debate. These past 3 months have shown us the true face of this, now openly, socialist and illegitimate government. As for HA they have reserved their right to forego the traffic and not stir the pot. I've been posting there since 06 and I'll continue posting there as long as I don't get banned.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 21, 2010 02:22 AM (A46hP)

Now that you mention it... why did they shutn that down? I was on there a couple of times and enjoyed it..

Posted by: Flavius Julius at March 21, 2010 02:23 AM (IrdrP)

How about ball gags and rat-infested dungeons?

Now that you mention it... why did they shutn that down? I was on there a couple of times and enjoyed it..

Posted by: TexasJew at March 21, 2010 02:30 AM (KXW8j)

I told you not to get me started ... but, in the beginning, the principals used to take an active role in the forum.  Then they lost interest in that, after which the forum started having technical problems, which pushed some people towards other blogs and is how I first got to Hotair.  Then later, for some odd reason, the Powerline guys got the idea that the root of all problems in the world was people having pseudonyms on the internet.  They proposed to the forum that only real names should be registered (which is a totally moronic and unrealistic idea to begin with, as if they could even check a name being registered) and got a whole lot of pounding in the thread that one of them posted about it - I forget who. 

After that, things just kept going downhill and people left.  Then, and this was the real assholish move, the Powerline geniuses decided that they didn't want the forum around anymore - too many pseudonyms to feel safe - so they just took the whole board down and removed it from the internet - without any warning, at all.  People had put a lot of effort into what we wrote and, while it was Powerline's right to take it down, it was the lowest sort for anyone who claims any respect for intellectual property and the output of people's efforts.  It was just nasty.  And to save a few bucks a month (traffic was never very high for the forum).

Some time later they decided to allow moderated comments in their blog, but only for "real" names.  LOL.  I posted a comment using the pseudonym I had used for thousands of forum posts (the one I have used for many, many years, progressoverpeace) and that they knew well and it didn't make it through moderation.  I guess I should have used Mike Hunt, or something "real" ...

Anyway, that's my Powerline story.  There are still a bunch of Powerline people at a forum one of the guys opened up when there were technical difficulties.

Posted by: Flavius Julius at March 21, 2010 02:23 AM (IrdrP)

Where is Walsingham when you need him?

oh my indeed.  damn I missed this thread earlier.  The Sanchez sisters are legendary for their ineptness and stupidity.  I doubt she knows there even is a vote Sunday.  "Healthcare huh"?

They were both elected by drafting every illegal alien in the district to vote for em.. and when the investigation showed more votes than registered d's AND known illegals in the area... well, they didn't want to 'offend' anyone by taking it any further.. haha what a joke

How about ball gags and rat-infested dungeons?

Posted by: TexasJew at March 21, 2010 02:34 AM (KXW8j)

AKA a typical night out in San Francisco?

The Black Suck-ass got their little feelings hurt. Or not.

Fucking parasites.

Anyway, that's my Powerline story.  There are still a bunch of Powerline people at a forum one of the guys opened up when there were technical difficulties.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at March 21, 2010 03:06 AM (A46hP)

Just a bunch of fucking lawyers. And they really blew thier creditibility when they piled up on Lyn Cheney a couple of weeks ago when she criticized some of their terror-enabling bretheran.

I try to avoid most lawyer-driven sites, such as Instapundit, Volokh and Powerline. The entire legal profession is a cabal - a sewer full of scumbags and weaklings. Even the "conservative" ones will often close ranks with the Leftists. Remember how Ted Olsen was very supportive of Eric "Shit-for Brains" Holder? What a dumbass.

Mark Levin attacked their dismissal of Lyn Cheney. He's an attorney as well, but one with a moral compass.

Could it be that Florida may be the difference in saving the country from another dire fate.

They got Gore gone, loretta, eh, who knows but regardless I feel at this moment that I must reaffirm the pride I have for the fine state of Florida.

Posted by: curious at March 21, 2010 04:14 AM

John Paul II and all of the Popes have supported universal healthcare as a right.  I don't get all that worked up about it.  It's simply saying that we need to look after others.  Hell, they're against all wars too.  They also think we should feed the hungry.  So what?  What should they say?  And if they were being bossed around by those nuns they would have supported the bill as is.  Oh, and the quote from your Baptist friend is stupid to say the least.  .

Posted by: curious at March 21, 2010 04:14 AM

Posted by: Kensington at March 21, 2010 08:37 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't admit I had that many stupid friends.

257  As a relapsed Catholic I can say that the Church has never "compelled" me to do anything, least of all agree with every position it takes. 

I brought up some time ago the sad fact that many people mistake communism (which is a totalitarian, statist system) with communalism (which is pretty much the best descriptor of what Jesus was talking about) -- it is hard sometimes to separate the two, and anytime you have a hierarchy (like the Church to a lesser extent, or the state)  that supports communalism you the risk of communism being the end result, as communalism has to spring from the individual acting in free will.  In order to follow the faith properly, yes, you are supposed to feed the hungry, take care of the sick, yada, yada...but it's supposed to be done of your own free will; to willingly choose to keep the convenant with God.

However, you can see where this could become abused by leftists, who are in the end complete enemies of the Church (leftists don't like competitors for hearts and minds). 

And thanks for the slam on Catholics, again, and I'm digging the Hitler youth talk...my husband is German...I'm sure he'd be glad to know that even after 13 years of service to this country he's just a hop, skip, and jump away from goosestepping.

Re: Slick manning the phones:

Does this mean he'll be the featured caller on the Bob and Tom Show this morning? 

284 do they have the votes or don't they?

Depends who you ask. 

CNN Breaking News email: -- House Democrats have 216 votes needed to pass health care reform, chairman of House Democratic Caucus tells CNN.

But, Tweets since then:

Joe Barton (R-TX) right now on #FoxNews: "I guarantee you they don't have the votes locked down" #KilltheBill #HCR

From Major Garrett: Rep. Hoyer on MTP: "We're going to have 216 votes." Rep. Wasserman-Schultz on FNS: "We don't have a hard 216 right now."  When asked on MTP how far away Ds r from 216, Hoyer: "low single digits certainly, we'll get the votes this afternoon."

287  Heh, yeah, and my husband's grandfather nearly got turned in by his own brother for saying bad things about that particular dear leader...just wonderful stuff.

(yes, I'm being sarcastic again...anybody who would find that "truly wonderful stuff" is either too dumb for words, evil, or crazy beyond repair...or all of the above)

290 Can someone explain to me how Obama can issue an executive order that will deny funding for abortions

Can't see him doing it.  Seems to be more a fan of infanticide.

The Deems are going to tow the line and vote for this mess.  They will continue to claim it was done because of its significance and the historical blah, blah of it all.  The question is who in the Grim Reaper party has the cojones to repeal this thing as soon as possible.

286  I think you miss the point: I believe that it is a very bad thing to legislate morality.  Morality must ultimately be a personal decision, just like one's beliefs.  To take away individual freedom of choice is to ultimately set up a system in mockery of the covenant of God...and scripture deals quite a bit with people/things who set up a system in mockery of God's covenants with the aim of usurping God's will.

*Like I've said before, I'm not terribly religious, very relapsed and given to agnostic heresies...but I did have to study Church teaching enough, which was helpful in the long run -- helped me to recognize Marx for who he really was (plus all that wonderful humanities stuff...hear that Amish Dude? lol)

God Save Us from him and is agenda

And God will.

304:  Aren't all laws, by their very nature, inherently a statement of morality?

i.e.  Thou shall not steal...

I'd argue that it's impossible to avoid "legislating morality." 

by their nature, inherently -- sorry for the redundancy

Doctors - who needs doctors when you can have bureaucrats? 

Posted by: Bob at March 21, 2010 10:10 AM (Hkjsv)

Tell us, Bob. How does the GOP stop a 60 vote Dem majority on a cloture vote?

A Democrat who has long committed to opposing healthcare reform legislation has advised his fellow defectors that they should vote no early on Sunday and then immediately leave the House chamber.

Otherwise, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) told The Hill, they will be treated “like a piñata.” …

The tactics of House leaders during what is billed as a 15-minute vote are important. It is likely that some firm no votes on the Democratic side will vote right away while others, at the request of House leaders, will wait to register their no until the tally reaches the magic number of 216. Once it does, politically vulnerable Democrats will likely cast their no votes.

But if getting to 216 is a problem, Democratic leaders may lean on these members to change their minds.

What law does not legislate morality?

From Frederic Bastiat's essay "the law".

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain – and since labor is pain in itself – it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

The Dems/progressives are making it lawful to plunder.  That certainly is not moral.

The Dems/progressives are making it lawful to plunder.  That certainly is not moral.

Posted by: Vic at March 21, 2010 10:16 AM (QrA9E)

You can rationalize anything. They claim to be righting previous plunder.

The truth is the first casualty of war.

Great post - 328

Not only are the Dems making it lawful to plunder; they're portraying covetors as righteous victims. 

309  And therein lies the bug in the system -- in order to have true, complete, free will everyone would have to be acting in a moral way (as defined, I suppose by their society).  It would only work with small, homogenous groups because anytime you get a larger, heterogenous group you will of course have different cultural takes on what is moral.  On top of that, most people are dirty, rotten little monkeys and will not act in a completely moral way.

Thus, the need for laws -- so there goes a truly free society.  It's a balancing act between allowing free will and keeping people from throwing shit at each other.

345  They also fail, because they take over the role of both church and state, and subvert the moral teachings of whatever society they take hold in.  The state enforces the laws, but the church (or religion, or guiding philosophy whatever) frames and teaches the morality of a society.  This was where, imho, the Founding Fathers had a bit of a problem -- they wished to ensure the state could never dictate morality to the individual (or at least be as objective as possible in this area); I don't think they realized how heterogenous our society would become whereby the separation of church and state became a weak link through which the statists would drive a wedge.  That's not to say it wasn't a good idea anyway: it was; I just think they hoped we would be more vigilant in upholding the precept and guarding against usurpation of the idea.

As a state, the socialist/communist countries have made it legal to plunder; as the guiding moral light of their societies they have made it pious to do so (and in direct contradiction to most world religious/philosophical thought -- they "help" the weak, destitute, etc. by giving them entitlements; they do not help the same  to rise themselves above their condition...which is in direct opposition to what most religious/philosophical thought aspires to).

I'm not suprised that Stupak was bullshitting all along. Who couldn't see that?

I've been amused at all the naivete from my fellow conservatives about these sort of scumbags.

They thought that they could get to 216 without him, so they kept him in reserve so as not to hurt his reelection chances in Novermber and he was in on it from the start. When it became obvious that his vote was needed, the fix was in anyway. It was, and always has been "wink-wink, nod-nod"

There's no such thing as a "Blue Dog". There is something called a "fucking Lefty liar".

Our only course of action is totally destroy the entire "Blue Dog" scam for good and to keep them out of decent conservative districts.

Posted by: reginaldL at March 21, 2010 10:55 AM (k6Tcc)

Uh..huh.  Wonder if she purposely said that loud enough to be heard. 

369  Well, I try not to judge Jefferson and the rest too harshly: 

To a certain extent you do need a strong, central government -- only a strong, centralized governing body can respond to internal disasters and (especially) outside threats in a timely and coordinated (thus potentially successful) fashion.  The downside is that you do have to give up more liberty of action however, and you do end up having to "render onto Caesar" -- which isn't such a bad thing after all: Caesar does manage to build and maintain some very nice roads, aqueducts...has  a nice army to keep the peace and the barbarians away from the gates; you just don't want Caesar calling all the shots in your personal life (thanks for bringing up that quote up above...whoever Jesus was, he wasn't stupid, and was a fairly practical person imho).

It is a very delicate balancing act to keep a country strong and capable of prosperity, while at the same time safeguarding indiviual liberties and freedoms -- especially to a large and heterogenous group of people.  That there are weaknesses in what the Founding Fathers created should be expected -- they were not omniscient, nor omnipotent.  What they created, warts and all, is nothing short of a minor miracle.

My biggest fear is that Republicans will listen to idiots like Sean Hannity and run on simply "repealing" the bill. 

That's not going to work.  They have to run on "replacing" the bill.  We need to understand that the genie is out of the bottle - people have been promised "universal health care," so the GOP must give them a free market option that will do away with the bureaucracy of this bill and replace it with simplicity.

Guys like Paul Ryan get this.  For the life of me, I don't understand why the GOP doesn't run on a plan that provides  every American with an HSA with catastrophic coverage and a direct subsidy wired to the HSA. 

Indiana has done something similar with state workers, and it has been a remarkable success.

388 You're right.  I think that "repealing" would be the wrong tack anyway (we did need some form of health reform; the current situation is not even good, let alone ideal) -- reform would be the best strategy imho.  Just as you describe above.

That's what makes this bill all the more suspect and awful: it doesn't really fix the problems currently plaguing the healthcare system here and it destroys the things that are actually good about it.

Puritans sought religious freedom, all right -- for themselves.  Look, they lived in the age of Hobbes.  There was a lot of valid confusion of principle about what constituted a government authority.  They did not secede from England, or from the authority of the King.  That was their descendants, 150 years later.

The US has been, for most of its history, heavily dotted with "communities of principle" of one stripe or another, who use local government power to regulate the affairs of inhabitants according to one or another higher rule accepted by the majority.  The practice begins to look funky to us now, but did not seem alien at all 50 years back, less so a century ago. There are still plenty of social conservatives who see the promotion of [their chosen] virtue as the proper role of local, state or federal government. There's an irony here: if organized religion carried more heft in private life, there would be less call for legislated morality.

Freedom of conscience is a very new idea.  Freedom of action is even newer.  The Puritans were people of their times, neither as thorough-goingly broadminded as Harvard and Yale historians of the Great Books era would have you believe, or as butt-scrunching stiffnecked as we paint them now. They drank like fish, they smoked, they bundled and played at draughts; I would not seek out their company. But they didn't seek to control the entire continent -- they thought they had a commune there, and that's just what it was.

I cut them some slack. They were afraid to be out in the woods alone.

Guys like Paul Ryan get this.  For the life of me, I don't understand why the GOP doesn't run on a plan that provides  every American with an HSA with catastrophic coverage and a direct subsidy wired to the HSA. 

Imagine amending this mess to make contributions to an HSA qualify against those IRS-inflicted HC taxes.  No, it's not repeal but it takes money away from the beast and provides a free-market release.  Small bits like that can take a lot of the air out of the ObamaCare zeppelin. 

"Replace it" Why? With more govenment  fuckups and unfunded liabilities and massive (even if much smaller) tax increases?

We can't afford any such replacement. We're fucking broke.

The status quo that we have right now is a lot better, believe me.

Stop looking to goverment to solve these problems that they caused.

If the Pubbies have a plan like that Ryan pointed out, fine. But let's see some real independent accouting with different cost scenario analyses and no Pelosi-type gimmicks , and shitcan the entire CBO scam show. 

Posted by: Blue Hen at March 21, 2010 08:39 AM (1O93r)"

I am not a him I am a her and trust me, you have NEVER HEARD ANTI CATHOLIC SLURS FROM ME.

What's happening to you guys.  I thought it was ok to discuss anything on this site.  Well I'm worried, I'm worried about what is suddenly coming out of my friend's mouths.   I feel the anti Catholic stuff is tied to the abortion issue but I also feel that this is suddenly being brought up somewhere and this is why this crap is coming out of my friend's mouth.   If you look at my past postings you'll see that my friends, all of them almost, are sort of a barometer for what is going around.  

If you guys are going to assume that my comments about my friend were an "anti Catholic slur" then we can't even discuss what is going on, where it is coming from and why it is being said now.

I'm not usually up at that hour posting.   Did it ever occur to you that this is really really bothering me and I could not sleep because of it?

it is not too late !!!!!! tihs must lead the news today – obama’s deficit savings LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: Former CBO Director: Obamacare Deficit will be $562 Billion over 10 years http://bit.ly/bO22yh

UPDATE: Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, confirms CentristNet’s claims last night in his NYT column outlining the dodges and gimmicks included by the Democrats to obtain the explicitly false claim of $138 billion in paper deficit “savings” and concluding that Obamacare will actually result in over a half a trillion of increased deficit spending over the next 10 years

Guys like Paul Ryan get this.  For the life of me, I don't understand why the GOP doesn't run on a plan that provides  every American with an HSA with catastrophic coverage and a direct subsidy wired to the HSA. 

Indiana has done something similar with state workers, and it has been a remarkable success.

Posted by: stickety at March 21, 2010 11:10 AM (cEXzj)

Individual health insurance is NOT the responsibility of the federal government.  Period.  The federal government has no business making any dictates about health coverage, and certainly not about universal coverage - I don't care what that coverage is based on.  Any "conservative" who is proposing anything along those lines is an idiot who is happy to rape the Constitution like the Demoncrats, only in a different way.

For those of you asking, I have Nye down as one of Gabe's "voted No last time, but is undecided now" category.

We only needed a very few "undecideds" to win, by his count, so that could be kind of huge.  We also got Matheson, according to Drew, who was also in that category.  But I think at least one of his "No"s came out as a surprise "Yes".

That being said, Gabe's whole count could be blown to hell or not, depending on how the Stupak block holds out.

407:

Really?  So what exactly should the GOP run on?  Repealing Medicare and Medicaid? 

Call me f**king crazy but there are quite a few federal mandates involved in those two programs.  That should be an easy sell to the public. 

Really?  So what exactly should the GOP run on? 

Posted by: stickety at March 21, 2010 01:41 PM (cEXzj)

Constitutionality would be a novel idea.  Repealing the health scare, impeaching The Precedent, and holding the Washington junta liable for their attempted coup would work.

Of course, I expect the GOP to run, instead, on some idiotic notion of universal health care coming from the federal government ... "but cheaper" ... since the Constitutional restrictions never figured heavily into Republicans' arguments (Ryan never even bothers talking about restrictions on the federal government).

  daefawegg <a href="http://hxrxydmwnmyo.wordpress.com/">link</a>

link

XYLITOL

link

It is a begun poppy.