StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 09:02 AM) Eh, it was strangesox. Sorry. I lose track.

What's there to do when both private enterprise and the government suck ass?

Why not make it intent to injure=you miss the same number of games as the injury causes?

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03...t-yourself.html It's hard to reach such epic levels of fail.

Kap, we're poking fun because you use the "it's the same thing!" response to plenty of cases where it clearly is not or the "it's always different" to cases that are strikingly similar. This is, as far as I can tell, just another dubious-but-legal method, just like we've magically come to require 60 vote majorities in the Senate. Now, if this has been done before without causing a Constitutional Crisis, why is it all of a sudden one now? I'm defaulting to the position of "it's probably not" based on who harping about it, but I know next to nothing on House procedural stuff. Is there a solid legal analysis out there you could link to explaining the issues behind using the "deem and pass" method?

I hope they introduce at least two more sets of brand new characters.

It lead to all credit cards coming from a handful of places where they're allowed to charge upwards of 30% interest. I'd hardly say the expansion of expensive credit worked well for our economy.

DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE NAME OF COMMUNISM!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 07:54 AM) It's always different.® QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 09:05 PM) It's not the same thing. Not even close. You can't even begin to compare that to this. I spelled it out a few posts back. The filibuster is senate rules but they do vote, whether you like the procedure or not. No, I don't really care for it, but this is a whole different and explicit level. lulz

Simple solution, Balta. Just rename it a one-year flood.

In that post you did, and the "you deserve whatever lot in life you have" is common conservative philosophy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:16 AM) Well let's break this down. Tell me what you think the Slaughter Solution actually is - because honestly, I've seen like four or more different interperetations so far, just in the press. My impression is that it is basically a back door reconciliation, sort of a reverse bill method. In which case, both chambers have voted on the same measure. How is that unconstitutional? The one non-foaming-at-the-mouth discussion I read seemed to indicate that the House would be passing essentially two different versions of the same bill with the same act. that means they would be passing off their legislative responsibilities to the senate/ president.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) So do you think the "Slaughter Solution" is constitutional? They will not have voted on the same bill as the Senate, right? Tell me if I am missing something else? I'm still trying to get an actual explanation of what it is and what may or may not be Constitutional about it. Google searches turn up conservative blogs.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) In the current world, with the value of the dollar what it is, 10-12.50$ isn't enough to live on. The world sucks...life isn't fair. Get another job. I never advocate going on welfare, but if that's all the effort their willing to put fourth, then they can either deal with it, or do something to move along...either way, it sucks for them. Why don't you help them out, since you seem to live in some sort of utopia? Look, life is a b**** sometimes...and people making that little, for whatever reason, life won't be easy for them...but it is what it is. That's life. LOL. Blaming it on "effort".

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 11:56 PM) Because they don't live in the Obama fantasy land that you do? Sounds pretty simple to me. You all want your health care at all costs, and don't care that the MAJORITY of the people DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. That's crystal f***ing clear for you, although I know you can't understand English like this. Without the political crap it will start, the Slaughter rule is being pushed so that the senate bill will be "deemed to already be voted upon and passed" by the House so that it can go to the president's desk for signing. It is against Article I Section 7 CLEARLY where it says both houses of congress must vote on the same bill before it can get signed. The argument is that since reconciliation is going to happen after the "slaughter rule" occurs, that there's no harm in it. The political crowd (like me) now comes in and says that if you monkeyf***s can't pass it the right way, then don't pass it. Get the f***ing message that people DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. Health industry reform? Yep. All about that. This bill? f*** no. Just shut the hell up already. You're a broken record straw man. I was referring specifically to whining about the Democrats not wanting to do a straight up-and-down vote. It's been Congressional Republicans blocking straight majority votes.

LOL. How can anyone say that with a straight face? Also can someone provide a reasonably unbiased explanation of the "Slaughter Solution"? A google search just returns a bunch of conservative blogs and opinion pieces.

Maybe the telecom companies can use all the billions in subsidies they already got to expand broadband capacity and never actually.

Alice in Wonderland in IMAX 3D was good, but it's probably a mediocre movie in regular 2D. Also, everything should be in IMAX 3D.

Another ASUS Eee PC owner. It's great for sitting on the couch or for travel. I'm sure it would work well for your situation of pulling up stats or other info. Normal laptops seem absolutely massive to me by comparison.

Yeah, that is just an example of a government system capable of being as bad as our private system. It's still not a good defense of our private system.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 13, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) Nevermind. Utopia for everyone, any time, any place. Our government needs to take care of that. I didn't say it was a good idea, just that your repeated assertions about what the "majority" want are inaccurate.

Can we kick them out of the union? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html Dunning-Kruger in full effect.

Progressives, generally speaking, would not be happy with a private insurance fix; they want a government-run plan available to everyone. And that still doesn't match up with what you were saying. Just like all of the dislike of Obama doesn't translate into support for Republican policies.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 07:14 PM) Ok, that's pretty much a given. The majority of Americans do not want a comprehensive government bill. As I've said over and over, the bill is a government takeover of health care whether it's called "public option", "dumbass supercalifragiliciousexpelodocious screw you Americans", "eat s*** Republicans", or "Democrats know what's best no matter what". Call it anything you want, but people know enough to understand that it's a government takeover in a place where it doesn't belong. When the government MANDATES you to buy a specific good or service, it has gone too far. A majority are unhappy with the bill. That doesn't mean a majority don't want comprehensive reform; a lot of progressives are pissed that the bill doesn't go far enough. You've made this claim before and you've been corrected on it before.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 08:14 AM) Can be done. The constitution is shorter than this, and covers a LOT more ground. It's vague and very high-level government structure. How many pages of court documents do you want to include that go into understanding the Constitution?