StrangeSox

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:30 PM) anyone that gets worked up over Ann Coulter comments is a retard. yeah that

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 01:45 PM) So someone who funds terrorist organizations and is deemd a national security threat (real or not) is somehow equal to a person who, at best, makes bad jokes and is pretty insensitive to groups she doesn't like? Shifting goalposts. strawman/ hasty generalization

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 12:49 PM) There should be limits. I would think an operation would be one. And I wonder who paid for the abortion? The state doesn't require any consent for this specific procedure from anyone but the patient. eta it would be no different than her going to Planned Parenthood on her own.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 09:38 AM) I read this morning that Ann Coulter's appearance at the University of Ottawa had to be shut down for security reasons. I'm not really a fan of talking heads like her, but I do find it pretty funny that there's not more of an uproar about this type of thing. Imagine if Michael Moore was in the same situation. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...Y-kQnAD9EKVOKG1 And it's Canada, I know, and they have their own version of freedom of speech, but it's pretty ironic that a protest got so out of hand over a woman speaking her mind about...yep, free speech (or lack thereof). Hey remember when the conservative government in Canada blocked a liberal British politician from coming? Yeah, probably not, because there wasn't some huge upraor. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/ma...y-banned-canada Ann Coulter is a troll irl. I don't know why anyone gives enough credence to her remarks as to be offended by them.

The mom signed a consent form for medical care.

Two things 1) What does that have to do with HCR? 2) What is supposedly wrong there? She's not required to get parental consent, so I wouldn't expect medical professionals to neglect their duties.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) That's the sad reality. My previous employer suspended 401(k) matching, so I stopped contributing. Like you mentioned earlier, there's better options and more control on your own.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 24, 2010 -> 07:59 AM) Where you get this wrong is that you magically give the money to the employee that the company was paying in health care costs. That's not reality. Reality is this...I'll fix it for you. "Simple math really. $15,000 a year insurance plan, $35,000 a year employee salary versus $35,000 a year salary, except in the 2nd case, your employee has to pay tax on the full $35,000, while in the former case, the employee pays taxes on $35,000." The company will NOT hand that money back to the employee, they'll keep it. In this economy, there isn't much you can say, either. Be happy you're employed. And it's going to be like this for a while before employees have any sort of leverage or negotiating power with companies. There are millions of unemployed out there that'll take that 35,000$. Your scenario assumes the current economic/ employment situation continues at least through 2014, when most of these provisions in the bill will take effect.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 04:58 PM) The Senate is not going to flip. There is no way the GOP is going to get 10 pickups and the Democrats 0. I could see a 5-1 roll. The house is more in flux. But I still think a 20 seat loss is more likely than a 40 seat one, and I think Speaker Pelosi will keep her chair. That's why I said 2012. Even if they got they won't be able to override Obama's veto.

They can run on Dems suxor at the economies. Doesn't matter how they get in, just what happens if they do.

Hey remember when conservatives flipped out over Homeland Security raising awareness about nutty fringe conservative groups? Yeah, that was uncalled for.

So, if the Republicans get the Congress and the WH back in 2012, do they just repeal the whole damn thing before most of the provisions have even gone into effect?

Open letter to conservatives (Republicans, really): http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/...e.php?ref=recdc

That's unfortunate. The Republican meme of vote rigging managed to stick along with that heavily-edited video tape with the "pimp".

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 11:05 AM) I'm still confused how things like Lasik are not covered by all plans. I don't have vision coverage period. also fyi for anyone considering laser: there's concerns about being able to test for glaucoma after the surgery. So, if you have a family history of it, you might want to talk to your eye doctor before deciding. I think the issue was not having any data to baseline measurements against, but that it is improving and probably won't be a concern in the future.

Yeah, eventually. I blame them for capitulating in the first place.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 10:29 PM) I think that the government isn't going to eliminate s*** in these costs. But you all view it as the savior of all things market related, so wallah, it must be so. What possible benefit do you think it's actually providing now for the public?

It's been $3.09 in Woodridge since last Thursday or Friday. Woo.

Good Morning, Comrades!

Ubisoft had similar fail with their latest DRM scheme. First, they instituted a new system that required a constant internet connection to play, even if it was a single-player game: http://support.uk.ubi.com/online-services-platform/ Of course, this was hacked before the game was even officially released. No shock there. What happened then? Ubisoft's servers went down, so all of the legitimate customers couldn't play their games while the those with pirated copies could. Brilliant idea. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/...Servers-Go-Down And the icing on the cake is that Ubisoft has used pirate hacks in the past to "patch" their own crappy DRM software. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080718/1117121722.shtml

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot..._plan-1130.html Fox's poll seems like a strong outlier, pulling the average to +9.2 Oppose, but I don't see a single poll that shows a majority in favor of it. But, more to the point, it doesn't matter. We don't run a true democracy where policy decisions are made by majority votes of citizens. We elect representatives who then vote and it may not always be exactly how the public currently views a particular bill. I still find the repeated cries of "RAMMING IT DOWN OUR THROATS!" funny, though. It's about 14 months into his Presidency/ Dem strong majority, and about 12 months have been largely focused on HCR, but that's still somehow rushing through the issue.

Kap, are you still conflating opposition to this specific bill to support for conservative opposition to the bill?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2010 -> 07:16 PM) Polling data really doesn't matter anyway, when a party has a priority as clear as this one, and they get elected with big majorities like the Democrats have right now, they're going to try to pass it... I don't really have much sympathy for a politician who votes a certain way only because he/she is trying to get re-elected and I don't really think that many other people do either. Exactly. How often do politicians get derided for "poll-watching"?

Well, they were party to a lawsuit over it, right?

What free insurance card is he referring to? Medicare?