bmags

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.

yep, 3 more votes until the dachau-like death camps open. What have we done?!

10 PM EST

Greenwald has always clearly needed an editor to reel him back. But his heart is in the right place Just read Jesus' son by Denis Johnson. First half inspired, second half alright

If you put it up for an amendment, I'll vote for it. That saying, that America has contributed two or three great things jazz baseball and democracy or whatever, forgot whiskey. Whiskey is better than scotch. Scotch looks down upon you. Scotch sucks out your wallet out of mere principle. Whiskey loves you. Whiskey will let you mix it if you want to. Whiskey will go in ice. Whiskey will go straight. And whiskey will love you. Whiskey is the dog. Scotch is the cat. Cat lovers are p*****s. USA USA USA.

Mr. G, if you'll remember, pistol duels were the more humane versions of civility in the american legislature, a member WAS beat to death by a cane. In addition, accounts of the first state legislatures in places like California and Tennessee are hysterical. The constertution ain't say nothin about drinkin a bucket of whiskey and getting too rowdy to continaw

8 pm I think...so 12 am my time. F'n F I like the house filibuster, I hate the senate filibuster. House filibuster is the heart of mr. smith goes to washington, the senate filibuster is minority party claims "present". If the senate was like the house it would be threatened a whole lot less.

they are essentially saying that even the filibuster is not good enough anymore, with their minority, so now no debate can be had. On the other hand, I do enjoy how our legislature is useful again. After 4 decades of doing nothing, I'm glad they remembered what the hell they were supposed to do.

they are f***ing losing it. This isn't the 1850s anymore.

Ehh, not even close to as turbulent as the bears. For 7 years it was ventura, then carousel, then for quite a few years it was Crede.