bmags

Well, I know I wanted to talk about Ron Paul again. Dobbs show had just gotten completely off the wall. Spending months on the birth certificate issue, his battle against illegals, it had nothing to do with anything except him being pissed off about brown people.

it's the one thing he doesn't have to worry about, that and 2b.

http://tumblr.com/xa43z6r7h

I like evergreen trees and most conifers!

QUOTE (Heartattack19 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 04:37 PM) well, Teach for America did not accept me....I liked thier mission, felt i was a good fit, and with the need for Math and Science teachers, i thought i would at least get a chance. While i am disappointed, on to the next challenge. Tex, congrats on the History teacher job! I am going to try the Chicago teaching fellows next...lts see if something hits! Exactly. f*** them. Sorry though.

taco bell has the best value menu of any other fast food restaurant. Go TBell.

I mean, it's hard not to laugh, because my god that is dumb. But jesus. I bet they are just being PC! saying he's greek orthodox! I"m so sick of this conspiracy to protect Muslims in this country. They are all prone to killing every one of us!!!

it's shoes. Who the hell looks. He's wearing everything else adidas. Instead they have a GREAT PR story...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2009 -> 11:24 PM) One of the remarkable things about a lot of parliamentary systems as well is that they tend to naturally consolidate towards 2-3 parties as-is, because otherwise, they wind up so fractured that the country becomes ungovernable. The case to imagine is the Kucinich led party getting 5%, the Dems/Reps each getting 44-46%, and the Palin party getting 5%. Whichever side "won" the most votes can't form a government without the partiticipation of one of the extremes, and that gives the small group substantial negotiating power. The more parties you have, the worse that can get, and so naturally there tends to be some gravitation towards stable, longer-term parties in a lot of those countries with time. exactly.

See? It's all red...just like communist China. and Russia.

the countries in europe also have completely different legislatures. As much as people want to jump down duke's throat for everything, his opinion really isn't that controversial. A lot of people agree with it. A third party just sort of sounds nice, but a lot of times third parties that gain traction are completely reactionary - see the hardline anti-immigrant parties erupting in Europe. Realistically, America does have coalitions WITHIN the parties. As hard as it is for some highly-esteemed posters to understand, the democratic party is a good example. You have the progressive caucus, the blue dogs, environmentalists, and then dumb-asses whose only role is to cheer on war. And then you have the same in the republican party, with less catchy names. BUt, you used to have the northeastern republicans, social conservs. etc. With the way our congress is set up, a 2 party system is much more practical, and realistically, the country is pretty well represented.

yeah I gotta say, Adidas is lookin pretty s***ty.

but what about his political affiliations, balta?

Did he make one? I thought the whole thing was it was a free internet download sensation, I'm pretty sure he'd be eff'd copyright wise.

saddened but not surprised to see a call for an end of all muslims. Disgusted, as well. I have some thoughts, but I don't know how to express them. I think this is a topic that needs some time to digest. And especially some time for details to be hashed out.

Flaxx's response should be the only response...and then lock the thread.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 9, 2009 -> 08:13 AM) who said that? He did, just then.

there's the "research" NSS

Yeah I'm kinda hoping Reinsdorf wins a $120 million dollar powerball lottery and decides to use it all on payroll.

Pelosi is a Congresswoman, I have a hard time putting her on the line for California's problems.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 8, 2009 -> 05:20 PM) Who determins if they can afford it or not? And like all things government, even if they only subsidize a 'portion' right now, how long until some Democrat realizes if he increases that portion, he can perhaps win a few more votes in the next election? or until the people just below the cutoff for the subsidizing start to rally complaining that the demarcation line was set too high, and that they shoudl be included too? it will never end. it's at % of income. But nonetheless, in your scenario, he'd still need the support of 218 congressman/woman and ...as it appears forever more, 60 senators (or rather 217 and 59 assuming his own support), and the President. THis reform has taken an incredibly long time and, if it passes, needed an overwhelming majority at every level. For each change, will the same fight happen? But if they do need to raise the subsidies it will be bad because likely that means the premiums haven't gone down even with the added population and shared riskk.

only a portion are getting subsidized, and if you are going to have a mandate, you can't fine people who can't afford it and not give them any help to. But yes, to fix the health care debacle taxes were inevitable. But I highly doubt the cost passed to consumers will = the savings in premiums for the average person. This won't raise the praise of grains to an unattainable level for people.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 8, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) The government says everything they do is going to reduce the deficit...and it never seems to reduce it. Are we supposed to just trust them *this time*?! Because, I know, *this time* they REALLY REALLY mean it! Let's all agree to wake up and small the roses here...this isn't going to reduce anything, and regardless of what some branch of the government says, it will end up costing WAY more than projected. Everything always does. Including this. But this is all they can go off of. The subsidies are limited. The P.O. is based on premiums, and really, with the Senate P.O. the evidence doesn't really show it'd be all that less expensive than current rates. Hence Medicare +5. Both are funded, the senate through taxing cadillac plans, the house through taxing top 5 or 3 % i forget. They've made cuts to medicare. The SS reform in the early 80s gave them the 30 years they were expecting, I don't see how this won't at least do the same.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 8, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Didn't messiah say he would not sign a bill over 900 billion? Do we rally think they will cut 300 billion in committee? Oh and this will create jobs and reduce the deficit... If Obama signs this garbage, did he lie to the American people? You know a great way to create jobs?....Tax small businesses for not offering healthcare. They will hire like crazy....GMAFB Depression is coming....pucker up... Well, first the senate bill must pass, then they go into committee to merge the two bills, then it gets voted on by the two houses again. Further, the cost is kind of a silly number considering the House bill, for one, they both project to cut the deficit. Although the senate does a much better job of cutting it for a 20 year projection than the house, which is better for the first 10. But no, then he didn't lie to the American people. Because Congress makes bills. And considering it is projecting to reduce the deficit, that's probably more important than anything. And the taxing of small businesses for HC may or may not make the cut. A lot yet to be determined on this bill. But, one thing is for sure, the dachau death camps.

Not that many people are eligible for many of these PO's.